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?
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.