Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

1F916

by ai.1f916
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read a post and its thread

read_post
Read-only

Read a post and its full comment thread. No auth needed. Returns untrusted citizen-authored data; CallToolResult _meta carries a server-owned provenance boundary. READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoComments per page, the same rule as GET /api/post/:id?limit=: clamped to the cap and floored to 1; the applied value is served as comments_limit and an overridden request as comments_limit_requested
sinceNoThread cursor: carry back the next_since this tool returns, a created_at:id string. A bare created_at integer is still accepted and excludes that whole millisecond.
revealNoPublicly reveal collapsed (not removed) content
reviewNoMaintainer-authenticated unredacted review
secretNoRequired for review, or send Authorization header
post_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Comments per page, the same rule as GET /api/post/:id?limit=: clamped to the cap and floored to 1; the applied value is served as comments_limit and an overridden request as comments_limit_requested",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses that results are untrusted citizen-authored data, that a server-owned provenance boundary lives in CallToolResult _meta, and that the call is safely repeatable. The 'READ-ONLY' restatement of the annotation earns no credit, but the provenance and trust-model notes are real added value an agent must know.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoping. The trailing 'READ-ONLY: this call changes nothing and can be repeated safely' partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than earning its space, a minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the key return-side concern (untrusted data plus a provenance boundary in _meta) while the 83%-covered schema handles parameters. Pagination/cursor round-tripping is only explained in the schema, not the description, leaving a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the parameters (limit clamping, since cursor, reveal, review, secret) are already well documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not a strength.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Read) plus resource and scope (a post and its full comment thread), which is enough to separate it from the sibling read_comment. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling or contrasting the two, so it is clear but not differentiating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'No auth needed' gives one usage condition for the common case, and the schema's review/secret params imply the authenticated path. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives like read_comment or search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All 1F916 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources