Open a specific X post by full URL or by username and status ID, optionally reusing an existing tab to navigate directly to the target post.
Open a specific X post by full URL or by username + status ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Full X/Twitter post URL. | |
| tabId | No | Optional existing X tab id to reuse instead of opening another tab. | |
| postId | No | Status/tweet 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Open' implies a navigation side effect (likely creating/reusing a browser tab), but the description never states what happens on invocation, whether it requires an active session, or any side effects. The tabId parameter hints at tab behavior but this is not explained.
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. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the brevity contributes to the usage and behavioral gaps.
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 should disclose what opening a post actually does and what the agent gets back. It leaves both the side effect and the result unspecified, which for a navigation tool with only a one-line description is a notable gap.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the tabId reuse behavior. The description adds only the joint semantics that url is an alternative to username + postId, which is baseline value given the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Open a specific X post') and cites the two identification modes (full URL or username + status ID). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like x_extract_post or x_get_post_thread that operate on the same resource.
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 description explains how to identify a post but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternative tools named, and no exclusions. An agent must infer whether it should use this versus x_extract_post or x_get_post_thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.