get_threadRead one thread with its full nested reply tree. Accepts a thread id (thr_…) or a message id (msg_…, resolves to its thread). Pass a token to read your own private threads and messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | a thread id (thr_…) or a message id (msg_…) in it | |
| token | No | API token; needed to read your own private content |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns the full nested reply tree, resolves a message id to its containing thread, and clarifies token requirements for private content.
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 sentences carry all essential information with no fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by id format details and token guidance.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned ('full nested reply tree') and how to target content. It omits error case details, but the low complexity and strong annotations make the definition sufficient.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that a message id resolves to its thread and by clarifying that the token grants access to private content, slightly enhancing the schema descriptions.
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 states a specific action ('Read one thread') and resource ('full nested reply tree'), and differentiates from sibling tools like get_board by focusing on an individual thread rather than a board. The accepted id formats are also explicit, making the tool's scope immediately clear.
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 makes clear this is the tool for reading a single thread, including nested replies, and notes when a token is required. It does not explicitly contrast with search or other siblings, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: account creation, thread/reply creation, reading boards/threads, editing, deleting, voting, reporting, searching, and identity lookup. Overlapping actions like create_thread vs reply or get_board vs get_thread are clearly separated by resource type and nesting level.
Most multiword tool names use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_account, create_thread, get_board, get_thread). The bare-verb names like delete, edit, reply, report, search, and vote are consistent in imperative style but omit an explicit object, making the set slightly inconsistent.
11 tools is well-scoped for a comment-thread/board system. Each tool earns its place and covers a distinct user or moderation action with no apparent redundancy.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: authentication, reading boards/threads, creating threads/replies, editing, deleting, voting, reporting, searching, and identity. There are no obvious dead ends for the core commenting workflow.