postcopilot-mcp
Server Details
Threads tools for AI — generate viral posts, download videos, export profiles
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: downloading videos, exporting followers/following/profile, generating posts, and reading guides. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'postcopilot_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for Threads social media tasks—covering content retrieval, analytics, and creation without being over- or under-sized.
Core workflows (exporting data, generating posts, reading guides) are covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct posting or interaction tools, but the surface is coherent for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
6 toolspostcopilot_download_videoDownload Threads VideoAInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output behavior (returns direct URLs, no watermark) but omits any discussion of prerequisites (e.g., authentication), error handling for invalid URLs, or rate limits. For a simple read-like operation, this is a minor gap.
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 sentences long with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core purpose and output, and the second clarifies the exact URL format required. 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter meaning (with example), and output nature. It does not detail error cases or the exact structure of the return values (e.g., an array of URLs or a single URL), but given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete. A small gap is the lack of note about authentication.
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 description adds only minimal value beyond the schema. It repeats that the URL must be a Threads post with video and gives an example. While helpful, the schema already describes the parameter with its type and format, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.
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 action ('Download a video') and the resource ('from a Threads post URL'). It specifies the output ('direct video download URLs, no watermark') and provides an example URL. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools which handle export, profile, or post generation.
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 when to use the tool: to download a video from a Threads post URL. It provides context by stating the URL must contain a video. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the siblings are unrelated enough that the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
postcopilot_export_followersExport Threads FollowersAInspect
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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It reveals a limit of 60 followers and the output fields, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 consists of two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states the action and limit, second lists output fields and gives a URL example. No wasted words or redundant 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?
Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (usernames, display names, follower counts, verification status) and a limit. It lacks details on the response format (e.g., JSON array) and pagination, but for a simple tool with one parameter, this is nearly complete.
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 single parameter 'url' has 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example URL format, but essentially repeats the schema. No additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema are provided.
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 'Export' and identifies the resource 'followers from a Threads user profile'. It lists the returned fields, which clarifies the scope. The sibling tool names (e.g., export_following, export_profile) further differentiate functionality.
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 provides a URL format example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., export_following or export_profile). Usage context is only implied by the sibling names, offering no clear guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
postcopilot_export_followingExport Threads FollowingAInspect
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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses the output structure and a limit of 60 accounts, which is helpful. But it fails to mention that the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps.
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 sentences effectively convey purpose, output, and usage. No redundant information; front-loaded with key action and resource. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (what it does, what it returns, limit). Missing details like authentication or error handling, but still fairly complete for straightforward use.
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 description's example provides the same info as the schema's property description. No additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.
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?
Description clearly states the tool exports up to 60 accounts a Threads user follows, with specific return fields (username, display name, follower count, verification). It distinguishes from siblings like export_followers (followers vs following) and export_profile.
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?
Provides a clear usage example (profile URL format) and implies when to use (export following list). However, does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools, though context from sibling names makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
postcopilot_export_profileExport Threads Profile PostsAInspect
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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the output (structured post data) and the limit (20 posts). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple read-only export, the provided detail is adequate.
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: first states purpose and scope, second gives usage example. No extraneous 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?
Given the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, output format, and input example. It could mention authentication or edge cases, but is fairly complete for its simplicity.
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 already describes the 'url' parameter with an example. The tool description repeats the example, adding minimal new semantic value beyond 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'export' and resource 'Threads user profile posts', and includes a limit ('up to 20 recent posts'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like export_followers and export_following.
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 provides a concrete example of the required input URL format, guiding correct invocation. It does not explicitly state conditions when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but sibling context implicitly differentiates use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
postcopilot_generate_postGenerate Threads PostBInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or safety, beyond stating it returns generated text.
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 purpose, no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.
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?
Covers purpose and basic input, but lacks details on model selection, response format, or 'viral' optimization; no output schema to compensate.
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%; description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'topic or idea' for message).
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'Threads post', and distinguishes from sibling tools (download, export, read) clearly.
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?
Describes basic usage ('provide a topic or idea') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
postcopilot_read_guideRead PostCopilot GuideAInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions returning full text but lacks detail on behavior when topic not found, or whether it returns one or multiple guides. Adequate but could improve.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. No extraneous content.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description explains return value and parameter usage clearly. Could mention format (e.g., Markdown) but not necessary.
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?
Parameter 'topic' has a description with examples (e.g., 'viral', 'video download') and clarifies it can be a slug. Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds value beyond 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?
The description clearly states it reads a blog post/guide about Threads and returns full text. It distinguishes from sibling tools which perform different actions (download, export, generate).
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?
Explicitly recommends using the catalog resource first or providing a topic. Does not specify when not to use this tool, but guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!