Fetch recent public posts for a user id. Priced per post returned; defaults to 3 posts.. Platform=threads resource=posts. Costs 1 credit(s). Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key>. Credits unit: item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric user id from User Info. | |
| chunk_size | No | How many posts to fetch (max ~20–30). Defaults to 3. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Numeric user id from User Search / User Info."New value: +"Numeric user id from User Info."Input schema / properties / id / examplesPrevious value: -[
- "195178788"
-]New value: +[
+ "63286282350"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful operational facts: per-post pricing, the default of 3 posts, and the required 'Authorization: Bearer <api_key>' header. It still omits rate limits, pagination behavior, and what happens for private/suspended accounts, which keeps it from a 5.
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 opening sentence is front-loaded and useful, but 'defaults to 3 posts' is duplicated in the schema, and the appended template metadata ('Platform=threads resource=posts... Credits unit: item.') is largely boilerplate. Reasonably tight but with visible redundancy.
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 read tool it covers auth, cost, and default count, but with no output schema present the description could say what a returned post looks like or whether results are paginated. The essentials are there; the return shape is not.
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% and both parameters are documented in-schema (id source, chunk_size range and default). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the default of 3, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb and resource ('Fetch recent public posts for a user id'), and the 'public posts for a user id' phrasing clearly separates it from threads_post (single post), threads_user, and threads_keyword. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 required user id and the 'recent public posts' scope suggest when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no routing to threads_keyword or threads_post. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the choice.
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.