Export any public Threads profile's posts, followers & following into Claude, no login or API key
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: video download, followers, following, profile posts, post generation, and guide reading. The followers vs following pair is the closest overlap, but the descriptions clearly differentiate direction, and export_profile is clarified as exporting recent posts.
All tools share the postcopilot_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (download_video, export_followers, export_following, export_profile, generate_post, read_guide). No casing or convention mixing.
Six tools is well-scoped for a Threads content/export toolkit, with each tool covering a distinct capability and none appearing redundant or filler.
The set covers exports, video download, generation, and docs, but generate_post has no corresponding publish/schedule operation, and there is no search or engagement-analytics tool. These gaps limit end-to-end workflows an agent might expect from a posting copilot.
Download a video from a Threads post URL. Returns direct video download URLs (no watermark). The URL must be a Threads post containing a video (e.g. https://www.threads.com/@user/post/ABC123).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The Threads post URL containing the video |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds useful output context (no-watermark direct URLs) and an input validity constraint, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for posts without video.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then the input constraint. No redundant or filler text.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly discloses the return shape (direct download URLs). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits error/no-video behavior.
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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by supplying a sample Threads post URL format and restating the domain constraint that the post must contain a video — meaning an agent can validate its input without opening the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource pair ('Download a video from a Threads post URL') and immediately clarifies the output ('direct video download URLs, no watermark'). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling export/generate/read_guide 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?
Gives a clear precondition: 'The URL must be a Threads post containing a video,' backed by a concrete example URL. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what happens for non-video posts, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Export up to 60 followers from a Threads user profile. Returns usernames, display names, follower counts, and verification status. Provide a profile URL like https://www.threads.com/@username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The Threads profile URL (e.g. https://www.threads.com/@username) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes beyond that by disclosing a hard 60-follower cap and enumerating returned fields (usernames, display names, follower counts, verification status). It omits auth requirements and what happens on private/invalid profiles, keeping it short of 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?
Three short sentences with zero filler: capability and cap first, return payload second, input requirement last. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields and the 60-item ceiling, which is exactly what an agent needs to set expectations. It stops short of mentioning authentication, error handling, or whether results can be paginated beyond the cap.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the URL requirement with an example but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Export ... followers from a Threads user profile') with the platform named. The scope word 'followers' cleanly separates it from the sibling postcopilot_export_following and postcopilot_export_profile without needing either schema opened.
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 implied by the instruction to supply a profile URL, but the description never states when to choose this over postcopilot_export_following or the other export siblings, nor any precondition or exclusion. Adequate minimum-viable routing, no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Export up to 60 accounts that a Threads user follows. Returns usernames, display names, follower counts, and verification status. Provide a profile URL like https://www.threads.com/@username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The Threads profile URL (e.g. https://www.threads.com/@username) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds a concrete behavioral limit ('up to 60 accounts') plus the returned field set. It stops short of saying what happens for private/protected profiles or how the cap is applied (truncation vs pagination).
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope limit and return shape, with no filler. The final sentence duplicates the url description already present in the schema, so it is slightly redundant rather than earning 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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers scope, cap, and returned fields, which is sufficient even without an output schema. It leaves unstated whether the result is paginated beyond 60 entries, which is the only notable gap.
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 the single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description restates the same URL example rather than adding format constraints or handling for malformed/non-Threads URLs, which makes this baseline at best.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Export up to 60 accounts that a Threads user follows'), and the phrase 'a Threads user follows' resolves the follower/following ambiguity that separates it from the sibling export_followers. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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 implied by the directionality wording ('accounts that a user follows'), which tells an agent this is the following-list tool rather than the follower-list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no prerequisites or failure conditions called out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Export up to 20 recent posts from a Threads user profile. Returns structured post data including text, likes, replies, reposts, and timestamps. Provide a profile URL like https://www.threads.com/@username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The Threads profile URL (e.g. https://www.threads.com/@username) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description adds real value by disclosing the 20-post cap and the shape of the returned data (text, likes, replies, reposts, timestamps). It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and whether the cap is configurable.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result limit. The closing URL example is somewhat redundant with the schema's own example, which is the only mild waste.
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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the 20-post limit. What an agent needs to call it correctly is present; only edge behavior (empty profiles, private accounts, pagination) is unaddressed.
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?
There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the url field. The description repeats the URL format already present in the schema, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb (Export) and resource (recent posts from a Threads user profile), which clearly separates it from export_followers and export_following. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.
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 URL format example implies how to invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as export_followers for a different export target. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a viral Threads post using a fine-tuned AI model. Provide a topic or idea and get a ready-to-post caption. Returns the generated text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | AI model to use: 'gpt' (fine-tuned GPT, default) or 'llama' (Together AI Llama) | gpt |
| message | Yes | The topic, idea, or prompt for the Threads post |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully clarifies that the tool only generates and returns text rather than publishing to Threads, which disambiguates side-effect expectations beyond what the annotation states. It stops short of disclosing latency, rate limits, or output length.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and the returned artifact. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.
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 two-parameter generative tool with no output schema, the description covers the input expectation and states that the generated text is returned, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. It omits any sense of output style, length, or determinism, leaving a small gap.
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%: both 'message' and the 'gpt'/'llama' enum are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the model and the topic input but adds no format, length, or style constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a viral Threads post', and adds the mechanism ('fine-tuned AI model') plus the output ('ready-to-post caption'). This clearly separates it from the sibling export/download/read tools, none of which produce text.
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?
It tells the agent what to supply ('Provide a topic or idea') but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the input expectation, not by explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read a PostCopilot blog post / guide about Threads. Returns the full text content. Use postcopilot://blog/catalog resource first to see available guides, or provide a topic to search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Topic to search for (e.g. "viral", "video download", "export followers", "analytics") or a blog slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a return-shape fact ('Returns the full text content') that annotations cannot convey. It omits size/length limits and error behavior when no match is found, so it is good but not complete beyond the annotation baseline.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return value then routing guidance, with no filler. The final clause slightly overlaps the schema's own description of 'topic', a minor redundancy rather than a defect.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnlyHint set, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the return format, and the discovery resource to use first. Missing only fallback behavior when the topic matches no guide.
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% for the single 'topic' parameter, and the description's 'provide a topic to search' adds only a restatement of the dual topic-or-slug modes already documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Read a PostCopilot blog post / guide about Threads,' and it further narrows scope to guide retrieval rather than the export/download siblings. No sibling tool competes for this operation, so the agent can select it unambiguously without opening any schema.
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?
It gives two concrete entry paths: consult the postcopilot://blog/catalog resource first, or pass a topic to search. That is clear context plus a named alternative resource, but it stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. missing guide, non-Threads topics) or what to do if the topic yields nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
postcopilot_download_video1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"postcopilot_export_followers1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"postcopilot_export_following1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"postcopilot_export_profile1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"postcopilot_generate_post1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"postcopilot_read_guide1 field changedInput schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"postcopilot_export_followerspostcopilot_export_followingpostcopilot_export_profile1 field changedInput schema / properties / modeRemoved value: -{
- "default": "auto",
- "description": "Export mode: 'fast' (HTTP only, ~5 posts), 'full' (browser, more posts), 'auto' (tries fast, falls back to full)",
- "enum": [
- "fast",
- "full",
- "auto"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}postcopilot_download_videopostcopilot_export_profilepostcopilot_generate_postpostcopilot_read_guidePublish, reply, moderate, search and read insights on your Threads (threads.com) account.
Read public X (Twitter) posts, threads and X Articles as clean Markdown. Read-only, no auth.
Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Threads profiles, posts, comments and transcripts. Runs on Apify.
Export full Bluesky follower/following lists with profile stats. Audience and lead research.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.