Threads MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'edit' implies a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if the progress entry doesn't exist), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('edit') and resource ('progress entry'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error cases, or what the edit entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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%, with all parameters (threadId, progressId, note) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('edit') and resource ('an existing progress entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_progress' (create) and 'delete_progress' (remove), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more detailed about what 'edit' entails.

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., needing an existing progress entry), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'update_thread' or 'list_progress'. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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