Unhide a previously hidden reply on a Meta Threads post owned by the connected account. Also unhides its nested replies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reply_id | Yes | The Threads reply id to unhide. | |
| 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 set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is already declared. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in the annotations: the operation cascades to nested replies, and it is bounded to content on a post owned by the connected account. It does not detail auth requirements or failure behavior, so it stops short of a 5.
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 tightly written sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the cascade detail following. No filler or redundancy; every clause 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?
With no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description says what the tool does, what it affects, and the cascade side-effect, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It is slightly short on permission/ownership failure semantics, but nothing essential is missing for a simple toggle mutation.
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 reply_id and the in_workspace parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the full burden.
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 (unhide) and resource (reply), scopes it to a Meta Threads post owned by the connected account, and adds the cascading detail that nested replies are unhidden too. An agent can immediately distinguish this from its inverse sibling threads_channel_hide_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?
The phrase 'a previously hidden reply' implies the use case (reversing a prior hide), so usage is inferable. However, it never names the counterpart tool or states any condition for when this should or should not be invoked, leaving the when-to-use reasoning implicit.
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.