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 the action ('Get') but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries hierarchical data.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get immediate children'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of omitted details in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'children' means in this context (e.g., types of entities), how results are structured, or potential limitations. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'entityId' documented as 'Parent entity ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get') and resource ('immediate children of an entity'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_ancestors', 'get_full_tree', or 'get_subtree', which also retrieve entity relationships but with different scopes or directions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ancestors' (for parent relationships), 'get_full_tree' (for all descendants), or 'get_subtree' (for deeper children), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone without explicit context.

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