Repost a specific X post by URL or post ID and verify the resulting repost state to confirm the action succeeded.
Repost a specific X post and verify the resulting repost 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 does disclose one trait – that it verifies resulting state after the repost – but says nothing about permissions, idempotency when already reposted, rate limits, or failure behavior for a mutation tool.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and adds the verification outcome, with 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?
Covers the core action and the verification step, but for a 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around preconditions, failure modes, and what 'verified' actually means to the caller.
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 schema already documents url, tabId, postId, and username including the 'if url is omitted' fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 (repost) and resource (a specific X post) plus an outcome (verify the resulting repost state). An agent can distinguish it from x_like_post, x_reply_to_post, or x_quote_post_task, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.
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 x_quote_post_task or x_engage_post_task, which also act on a post. No prerequisites (logged-in account, target tab) or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.