postcopilot_export_profileExport 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) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input 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"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral info: it limits output to 'up to 20 recent posts' and enumerates the returned structured fields. It doesn't discuss authentication or error behavior, but for a read-style scrape this is decent coverage beyond a bare 'Export posts' statement.
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 tight sentences: the first states the main action, the second supplies return details and an example. No filler or redundant framing.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented by the schema, and the description outlines the expected return fields even though there is no output schema. It does not acknowledge whether the profile must be public or whether only the latest 20 posts are available, but it is sufficient for the requested simple task.
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 input schema already has a full parameter description (100% coverage) with the same example URL. The tool description's sentence 'Provide a profile URL like...' repeats the schema and adds no additional semantic nuance needed to call the tool correctly.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Export up to 20 recent posts from a Threads user profile') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that export followers or following. The return fields (text, likes, replies, reposts, timestamps) further confirm what the tool produces, leaving no ambiguity.
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 clear context that this tool is for profile posts, and includes a typical URL format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using postcopilot_export_followers for follower lists. The guidance is implied rather than spelled out for the agent.
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.