Hide a reply on a Meta Threads post owned by the connected account. Also hides every nested reply beneath it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reply_id | Yes | The Threads reply id to hide. | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds a genuine behavioral fact they don't convey: the hide cascades to every nested reply. It stops short of explaining the declared idempotentHint=false (what happens if the reply is already hidden) or reversibility via the unhide sibling.
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, zero filler, and the cascade behavior is front-loaded right after the core action. 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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its side effect. It omits only the reversal path and the meaning of the declared non-idempotency, which are minor rather than blocking gaps.
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 both reply_id and the session-vs-workspace semantics of in_workspace are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 (hide) and resource (a reply on a Meta Threads post), plus the ownership scope ('owned by the connected account'). An agent can distinguish it from the inverse sibling threads_channel_unhide_reply without opening either 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?
Usage is implied by the action itself, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no pointer to threads_channel_unhide_reply as the reversal, and no prerequisite/eligibility conditions (e.g., what qualifies as an owned post). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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.