Retrieve built-in X state maps for flaky surfaces, including account switcher, composer, community, home, post, and profile, so agents can navigate and extract reliably.
Return the built-in X state maps for flaky surfaces like account switcher, composer, community, home, post, and profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surface | No | Optional surface name: home, account_switcher, composer, community, post, or profile. |
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 does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, whether it needs an authenticated session, whether results are static built-ins versus live, or whether omitted 'surface' returns all maps. Only the 'built-in' hint adds any behavioral color.
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 with no filler; the verb and the scope of returned maps arrive immediately and every clause 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 and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what a 'state map' contains, since that is the entire return payload an agent will receive. It names the surfaces but never characterizes the data, leaving a meaningful gap for a lookup tool.
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%, and the description's surface list mirrors the schema's list, so it adds little beyond the structured field. The one open question the description could have answered - what happens when 'surface' is omitted - is left unresolved, so a 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+resource: 'Return the built-in X state maps' with an enumerated set of surfaces, which is more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as x_get_state or x_get_composer_state, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this over those.
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?
The phrase 'for flaky surfaces' implies a usage condition (use these maps when the live surface is unreliable), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the adjective rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.