Like a specific X post using its URL or post ID, then verify the like button state to confirm the action succeeded.
Like a specific X post and verify resulting button state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Full post URL. | |
| tabId | No | Optional existing X tab id to reuse for this action. | |
| postId | No | Status ID if url is omitted. | |
| username | No | Post author username if url is omitted. |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool verifies the resulting button state after clicking, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits what happens if the post is already liked, auth/rate-limit constraints, and whether the action is reversible.
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 that front-loads the action and appends the verification behavior. No filler.
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?
For a zero-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: it never explains what the verification step returns or how failures/idempotency are handled. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.
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, tabId, postId, and username are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the url-vs-postId/username fallback logic, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Like a specific X post') plus an outcome ('verify resulting button state'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like x_repost_post or x_quote_post_task, though it doesn't explicitly address overlap with x_engage_post_task.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as x_engage_post_task or x_repost_post, and no preconditions (e.g., must be logged in, post must exist). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.