Are your links shareable on X/Twitter with a proper preview card?
Confirms each page declares a Twitter Card type and either Twitter or Open Graph preview fields.
What this signal tests
We check whether your pages include a twitter:card meta tag declaring the card type (summary, summary_large_image, app, or player), along with the matching title, description, and image fields. Twitter Cards work as a redundancy layer to Open Graph: when present they take priority on X (Twitter), and when absent X falls back to Open Graph.
Why it matters for your visibility in AI
Although X has lost some preview-rendering generosity over recent years, Twitter Cards are still consumed by a long tail of tools beyond X itself, including some AI summarisers, third-party social schedulers, and many independent client apps. Pages with Twitter Cards present a cleaner preview across more tools than pages with only Open Graph. The weight is low because well-formed Open Graph usually covers Twitter previews via fallback, so a site with strong OG is not catastrophically broken on X. But emitting twitter:card explicitly is a sign of social-distribution discipline that correlates with other quality signals AI tools pick up on. The cost is one or two extra meta tags; the benefit is small but real, and many sites already emit these via their SEO plugin without realising it.
Pass criteria at a glance
| Criterion | Passes when |
|---|---|
| twitter:card valid value AND (twitter or OG title+description present). |
How we test it
We parse meta tags with name attributes starting with twitter:. We require twitter:card to be set to a valid value (summary, summary_large_image, app, or player). We then check for twitter:title and twitter:description (or, if missing, that og:title and og:description are present as a valid fallback). twitter:image (or og:image fallback) must also be present. If twitter:card is missing entirely, the signal fails regardless of the rest.
Show technical detection method
Parse twitter:* meta; twitter:card has valid value and either Twitter-specific or OG fallback for title/description/image.
If your site fails: how to fix it
- Add twitter:card to your page template head with an appropriate value. For most pages, summary_large_image (which shows a big image, like Open Graph cards) is the right choice. summary uses a smaller image; app is for app pages; player is for video/audio.
- Add twitter:title and twitter:description if you want different text on X than in Open Graph; otherwise, X will fall back to your og:title and og:description automatically.
- Use twitter:image to override og:image for X specifically. If your og:image is sized correctly (at least 1200 by 630), the fallback works fine and twitter:image is optional.
- Optionally add twitter:site (your account handle, like @yourbrand) and twitter:creator (the author's handle). These connect the share to your X presence and surface in some clients.
- Validate by pasting a URL into X's Card Validator (when available) or by sharing a test link in a private message to see the preview render.
Quick facts
| Maturity | ESTABLISHED |
|---|---|
| Weight | low |
| Category | Structured Data |
Primary sources
Related signals
Frequently asked questions
Is Twitter Card markup still worth doing now that X is less generous with previews?
Yes, modestly. X itself still renders cards on web and in some clients, and a long tail of third-party tools (AI summarisers, schedulers, content moderation tools) continue to read Twitter Card meta. The work is small (two or three extra tags) and the cumulative benefit across all these consumers outweighs the cost.
Do I need different content in twitter:title vs og:title?
Usually no. Most sites emit identical content because the audience and intent are the same. The split is useful only when you want a more concise title for X's character constraints (which are tighter than other platforms). For 99% of sites, identical content works fine and the fallback chain takes care of the rest.
Should I use summary or summary_large_image?
summary_large_image for most cases, because the large image preview is what users expect from modern share cards. summary is appropriate only for content where a large image would be inappropriate or you genuinely lack a suitable image (a thin app card, for instance). The default modern recommendation is summary_large_image.
Run your own scan
Run a free scan and see how your site grades across all 155 AI-readiness signals.