Skip to main content
Glama

threads_post_replies

Read-only

Fetch the public reply items currently exposed for one Threads post; the response can report more replies without a usable continuation cursor. Use threads_post for one post's details or threads_profile_posts to browse a profile's 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_replies"
  }
}

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the response may report more replies without a usable continuation cursor, warning the agent that pagination may be incomplete. It stops short of covering auth or rate limits, so it is not a full 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the pagination caveat, then routing guidance. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description surfaces the key gotcha (unreliable continuation cursor). Complete enough for a 2-param read tool; only deep behavioral detail is absent.

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%, so both username and code are already documented. The description only implies the pair identifies a single post, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Fetch), resource (public reply items), and scope (for one Threads post), and explicitly names the two siblings it is not to be confused with. An agent can distinguish it from threads_post and threads_profile_posts without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit alternatives and the condition selecting each: threads_post for one post's details, threads_profile_posts to browse a profile's posts. The routing decision is fully specified.

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.