Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MindThread

by io.github.ppcvote
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get top posts

get_top_posts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the best posts of a Threads account this member connected, ranked by engagement (likes + replies + reposts + quotes) or by views, likes, replies, reposts or quotes, with each post's text and metrics from MindThread's insights cache. Other people's accounts cannot be read: the Threads API only returns insights for the authorized user's own posts. Applies when the user wants to study what worked on their own account, for example to write a content document. 繁中：只讀會員自己連結的帳號，依互動排序取表現最好的貼文。

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_top_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoOnly posts from the last N days, 1-365 (omit = all fetched posts)
limitNo1-50, default 20
metricNoRanking metric, default engagement
account_idYesAccount id from list_accounts (only accounts this member connected)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: data comes from MindThread's insights cache and the Threads API only exposes the authorized user's own posts, which explains failure modes. It doesn't discuss freshness or completeness of that cache, which would have pushed it higher.

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?

The English portion is front-loaded with what it returns and the ranking model, then the restriction, then the usage cue. The trailing Traditional Chinese sentence is a full duplicate that consumes space without adding new information for an English-reading agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers source, ranking, scope limits, and that each post includes text and metrics. Return payload shape is only sketched ('each post's text and metrics'), but that is acceptable given the modest complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the schema already documents days, limit, metric, and account_id, so the baseline is 3. The description's engagement formula does add real meaning to the default 'engagement' enum value, but no other parameter is clarified beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The definition states a concrete verb and resource ('Returns the best posts of a Threads account') and specifies the ranking basis (engagement = likes + replies + reposts + quotes, or views/likes/etc.). It clearly scopes to the member's own connected account, but never names the closest sibling (analytics_insights), so differentiation still requires inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit applicability condition ('Applies when the user wants to study what worked on their own account, for example to write a content document') and a hard exclusion ('Other people's accounts cannot be read'). It stops short of pointing at an alternative tool when that exclusion fires, which is the only gap.

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

All MindThread toolsInspect
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