reply_in_threadAnswer in a thread, or answer an answer (parentId). as and anon as in start_thread: as themselves it's a draft they publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | "me" (default, a draft they publish), "pseudonym" (public threads only) or a channel they run. | |
| anon | No | ||
| mode | No | "draft" always makes a card the person taps. | |
| text | Yes | ||
| topicId | Yes | ||
| parentId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / as / descriptionPrevious value: -"Who writes: \"me\" (default — the person's own name, always a draft they publish), \"pseudonym\" (their pen name — public threads only) or a key from list_identities (a channel they run)."New value: +"\"me\" (default, a draft they publish), \"pseudonym\" (public threads only) or a channel they run."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "itemId": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "note": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "replyId": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "status": {
- "enum": [
- "published",
- "draft",
- "held"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "why": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "status",
- "replyId",
- "itemId",
- "why",
- "note"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a reply authored 'as themselves' becomes a draft the person publishes — but it is compressed into a fragment and largely restates the `as` schema description, leaving permissions, failure modes, and what `anon` does unexplained.
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 with no padding and the core action front-loaded, but the second clause is a sentence fragment ('as themselves it's a draft they publish') that is hard to parse and depends on the reader already knowing start_thread.
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?
This is a six-parameter write operation with a third of its parameters undocumented and no output schema, yet the description is two cryptic sentences. For a mutation tool it should at minimum explain topicId, the draft/publish consequence of `as` and `mode`, and how it differs from the sibling reply tool.
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 only 33%, so the description carries real weight; it clarifies parentId as the nested-reply pointer and points at start_thread for `as`/`anon`. It adds nothing for `text` or `topicId` and does not resolve the `mode` direct-vs-draft interaction with `as`.
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 and resource ('Answer in a thread') and adds the nesting case ('answer an answer (parentId)'), which is more than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from the close sibling reply_in_place_thread, nor clarify how it relates to start_thread beyond the `as`/`anon` reference.
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?
It implies the choice between a top-level thread reply and a nested reply via parentId, and defers `as`/`anon` semantics to start_thread. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from reply_in_place_thread, so an agent must infer which of the two reply tools to pick.
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.