Skip to main content
Glama

threads_post

Read-only

Returns the public text, author, canonical URL, and preview image for a Threads post. code: Threads post code. username: Threads username. Use threads_search to search public Threads posts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "username": "<username>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "threads_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThreads post code.
usernameYesThreads username.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so the field list is largely redundant. The description adds only the 'public' qualifier implying non-public posts are inaccessible, but omits auth/rate-limit context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose followed by parameter glosses and a sibling pointer, all in a few short sentences. The parameter restatement is mildly redundant but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-param read-only lookup with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is essentially complete; the agent knows inputs, what is returned, and which sibling to use instead. Minor gaps only in error/auth behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description merely restates the same labels ('code: Threads post code. username: Threads username.') without adding format, example, or URL-parsing guidance. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns ... for a Threads post') and even enumerates the returned fields (public text, author, canonical URL, preview image). This clearly distinguishes it from the search/profile siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative and its use case ('Use threads_search to search public Threads posts'), routing the agent away from a lookup to a search. It doesn't spell out the positive when-to-use trigger (e.g., 'when you already know username and code'), so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.