Threads MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether notes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though more context could improve completeness without sacrificing 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'adding a progress note' entails behaviorally, what the tool returns, or how it differs from siblings. More context is needed given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'edit_progress' and 'delete_progress'.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'threadId' and 'note' are required (matching schema), but doesn't explain context like note formatting or timestamp usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('progress note to a thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_progress' or 'delete_progress', which would require specifying this is for creating new notes rather than modifying existing ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., thread must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'edit_progress' for updates or 'list_progress' for viewing notes.

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