Search Threads (Meta's Threads app) users by keyword. Returns username, full name, verification status, and profile picture. Billed $0.006 per request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search keyword (max 500 characters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return fields (username, full name, verification status, profile picture) and the per-request cost, but it does not mention result limits, pagination, or rate limits. These omissions leave some behavioral uncertainty.
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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second adds valuable return fields and pricing. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and cost. It could be more complete by specifying result count or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic search operation.
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 already fully describes the only parameter ('query' with max 500 characters), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Threads users'), clarifying that it searches user profiles on Meta's Threads app. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_threads (likely posts) and other user search tools.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for keyword-based user search, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like threads_user_profile for exact-username lookups.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped by platform and resource (e.g. search_twitter vs twitter_user_tweets vs twitter_tweet_details). A few pairs like twitter_tweet_comments vs twitter_user_replies or facebook_page_posts vs search_facebook_posts could cause minor confusion, but descriptions generally clarify the distinction.
The dominant pattern is snake_case with a platform_prefix_resource suffix, and search_* consistently marks search operations. Minor deviations include noun-style names like amazon_best_sellers and place_photos, and the odd get_ skill/comments tools, but the overall convention is predictable.
74 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP server, even for a multi-platform API aggregator. The breadth is justified by the many platforms covered, but an agent will face a very large action space, and this could reasonably be split into per-platform servers.
The server provides strong lifecycle coverage for its read-only domain: search, profile/details, posts, and engagement data across most platforms. Gaps exist for some platforms (e.g. no LinkedIn person profile, no Facebook event details, no Truth Social profile/search, no Reddit subreddit-specific tools), but the core workflows are well covered.
