Open an X profile by username and return structured bio, stats, and pinned post data when visible.
Open a profile and return a structured profile record with bio, stats, and pinned post when visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | No | Optional existing X tab id to reuse instead of opening another tab. | |
| username | Yes | X username without @. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the return shape and the 'when visible' caveat implying possibly-absent data, plus 'Open' signals a tab side effect reinforced by the tabId param. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and whether data is cached or freshly fetched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource with zero filler. Every clause (bio, stats, pinned post, when visible) earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly specifies the return fields, which is the main burden here. It is slightly incomplete in not routing between itself and the profile-oriented siblings, but the payload description covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (tabId, username) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (open/extract) and resource (profile) plus the exact return payload (bio, stats, pinned post), which distinguishes it from x_get_profile_posts. However, it never names the closest sibling (x_open_profile) to clarify how extraction differs from mere navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, despite siblings like x_open_profile, x_get_profile_posts, and x_search_profiles competing for the same intent. Usage must be inferred entirely from the return payload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.