threads_search_listSearch Threads posts by keyword. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | No | Whether to request a smaller response shape when available. | |
| query | Yes | Search query text for public Threads posts. | |
| endDate | No | Optional end date filter in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| startDate | No | Optional start date filter in YYYY-MM-DD format. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and the fact that this hits external data. The description adds a small but useful behavioral detail: the return is a list and pagination uses a cursor. It does not go into limits, filtering semantics, or result shape, and it does not contradict annotations. Given annotations cover the main behavioral traits, the description's added value is modest.
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?
The description is a single sentence with two clauses: the core action ("Search Threads posts by keyword") and a return/pagination note ("Returns a list (use cursor when paginated)"). Every word serves a purpose, no filler, and the most critical information (verb, resource, behavior) is front-loaded. This is exemplary conciseness.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters (one required), no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the basic action and return type but lacks details that an agent might need to interpret results correctly—such as what fields the list contains, how date filters work, or that this only searches public posts (which is only in the schema's query description). It does not mention potential sibling overlaps, like threads_users_search, nor does it clarify the scope of "posts." Some context is available from the schema and annotations, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient for confident invocation.
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 every parameter (query, trim, startDate, endDate) already has an individual description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how query interacts with date filters or what trim actually trims. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately and the description remains neutral.
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?
The description states a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("Threads posts"), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like threads_post_get (retrieve a specific post) and threads_profile_posts_list (list posts from a profile), as this is clearly a keyword-based search across posts. The name and title align, and the description adds the key distinguishing element: searching by keyword.
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 implies usage: "Search Threads posts by keyword" clearly indicates when to use this tool. It also adds operational guidance ("use cursor when paginated"), which helps with iteration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need a specific post or a user's posts). This leaves some routing to inference, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for keyword searches.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.