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. It mentions the tool retrieves entities but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the entity doesn't exist), response format, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of retrieving entities in a system with multiple sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how this tool differs from similar ones, what the return value includes, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Entity ID or name'. The description adds minimal value by restating this as 'by ID or name' but does not clarify semantics like format differences between ID and name, or if both can be used interchangeably. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('Get') and resource ('any entity'), specifying it can be either a 'thread or container' and can be retrieved 'by ID or name'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_container' or 'get_thread', which appear to fetch specific entity types.

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 such as 'get_container' or 'get_thread', nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate use cases.

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