get_v2_post_details_and_repliesv2 / Post Details & Replies Group: v2 / Post. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Result limit | |
| cursor | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `cursor` value taken from the first response. | |
| post_id | No | Post ID (You can also enter the Child ID to get sub-replies to a reply.) | |
| max_depth | No | Tree depth for replies. Default = 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions billing ('1 Credits') and group membership, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, how pagination works (beyond the existence of cursor), or any side effects. It adds negligible behavioral context.
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?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it is not appropriately concise—it under-specifies essential information. It frontloads billing/grouping details rather than functional utility, so the brevity undermines clarity rather than aiding it.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide broader context about the tool's behavior, return values, and typical usage. It does none of this. Even though parameters are documented in the schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and no structured output information.
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 no parameter-specific information; it leaves all semantic detail to the schema, which already documents each parameter with examples and descriptions. The description does not compensate or enrich the schema meaning.
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 is essentially a label 'v2 / Post Details & Replies' that restates the tool's name without explaining what the tool actually does. It lacks a specific verb+resource description and does not clarify scope or differentiate it from sibling tools like get_v1_post_details or get_v2_feed.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include similar post-detail tools, but the description offers no context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.