Get engagement metrics for one Meta Threads post: views, likes, replies, reposts and quotes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The Threads post id (from threads_channel.list_posts). | |
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the list of metric fields returned, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, freshness/delay of metrics, or failure behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, scope, and returned fields all in one line. Nothing to trim.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers purpose and return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile; with no output schema, naming the metrics is the key missing piece and it is present. It stops short of 5 only because no usage context or metric-freshness caveat is offered.
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%, so both post_id and in_workspace are already documented in the schema (post_id even cites threads_channel.list_posts as the source). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') and resource ('engagement metrics for one Meta Threads post') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes). The 'one post' scoping implicitly separates it from the account-level sibling threads_channel_account_stats, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 is purely a purpose statement with no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent must infer on its own that this is for per-post metrics versus threads_channel_account_stats or threads_channel_list_posts, and nothing is said about prerequisites such as owning or having access to the post.
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.