render_threadShow a WindowsForum thread to the user as a readable card with its opening post and replies. Use after search or fetch when the user wants to see or open a specific discussion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | WindowsForum thread id, e.g. 430404. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. It adds context beyond those annotations by specifying the presentation behavior ('readable card'), which is useful for an agent to understand the output format. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. It includes when to use it and what it does, leaving no critical gaps.
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?
The schema provides a complete description for thread_id (type, example), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already includes, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool shows a WindowsForum thread as a readable card with opening post and replies, which is a specific verb+resource+format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_thread by emphasizing the presentation aspect ('readable card') rather than raw data retrieval.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool after search or fetch when the user wants to see or open a specific discussion. It provides clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.