Verify whether a specific text snippet is visible on X by checking the page body, article content, or active composer.
Verify that a specific text snippet is visible on X. Scope can target body, article content, or the active composer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text snippet to check. | |
| scope | No | Optional scope: body, article, or composer. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations accompany this tool, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether a failed visibility check returns false, throws, or errors, whether it waits/polls for the text, or whether the check is instantaneous — all important for a verification tool with no output schema.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The scope sentence earns its place by enumerating targets, though ordering could put the primary purpose even more prominently first.
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 simple two-parameter verification tool this is close to sufficient, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what a successful versus failed verification yields. It also doesn't describe matching semantics (substring, exact, case sensitivity).
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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the scope values (body, article, composer) but adds no format, matching, or default-scope behavior beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
The description names a specific verb (verify) and resource (text snippet visible on X), which is distinct from every sibling tool's create/read/open action. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related state-reading siblings like x_get_state.
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: the scope mention of 'active composer' hints this is used to confirm typed text after an action, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the verification workflow from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.