SiteCheck Shop & Social

Threads post search: the top posts for a keyword or hashtag

social_threads_search

Read-only

Threads (Meta) post search: the top posts for a keyword or hashtag as the logged-out search page shows them (usually 3 to 10) with author, text, time, likes, replies, reposts, quotes, media and link. From threads.net through a residential proxy; Threads decides the ranking and there is no date filter. Some topics (for example body image or health) show no posts to logged-out visitors at all; then the answer says so with resultStatus no_matches. Related tools on this server, for a different need: social_threads_replies when you need replies to a Threads post: the post itself and the replies; social_threads_profile when you need Threads profile: name, verified flag, bio, follower count. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "social_threads_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Keyword or #hashtag
`limit`	No	How many posts, 1 to 25 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses ranking is decided by Threads, typical result volume (3 to 10), that some topics return nothing to logged-out visitors with resultStatus no_matches, the residential-proxy access path, and the per-call price with no charge on failure. These are real behavioral facts not in the annotations. It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits, so not 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is one dense paragraph but front-loaded: what it returns, then caveats, then siblings, then price. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, though the pricing and sibling clauses make it run long and slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return fields, and it still summarizes them (author, text, time, engagement counts, media, link). Combined with the empty-result status, ranking caveat, and cost, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 'q' and 'limit' are already documented, and the description adds nothing about query syntax beyond the schema's 'Keyword or #hashtag'. The 'usually 3 to 10' wording also sits slightly at odds with a limit range of 1 to 25, which could confuse an agent about whether a higher limit is honored. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Threads (Meta) post search: the top posts for a keyword or hashtag') and immediately scopes the result set as the logged-out search page view. It explicitly distinguishes itself from social_threads_replies and social_threads_profile, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names both alternatives with the exact condition that selects each ('social_threads_replies when you need replies to a Threads post', 'social_threads_profile when you need Threads profile'), and adds negative guidance ('there is no date filter') plus the no-result case. That is explicit when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Shop & Social tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?