Open an X/Twitter post URL and extract the visible thread or timeline as structured post rows, with optional limit and tab reuse.
Open a post and extract the visible thread/timeline around it as structured post rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full X/Twitter post URL. | |
| limit | No | Max number of posts to extract from the thread (1-50). | |
| tabId | No | Optional existing X tab id to reuse instead of opening another tab. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully flags that only the 'visible' thread is extracted and that a post is opened/navigated to first, but it says nothing about pagination within the thread, auth/session requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the thread is truncated.
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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and immediately qualifies the scope. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral context, and it covers only the extraction target and visibility constraint. For a browser-driving extraction tool, more detail on ordering, truncation, and tab side-effects would be needed to call it complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so url, limit (1-50) and the tabId reuse behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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+resource pair: 'open a post and extract the visible thread/timeline around it as structured post rows.' The scoping phrase 'around it' distinguishes it from x_get_timeline (the caller's own timeline) and x_extract_post (a single post), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the resource being extracted ('thread/timeline around it'). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the nearby alternatives like x_extract_post or x_get_timeline, and no prerequisites given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.