Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
threads-mcp

threads-mcp

by Maz1n0-zzz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

reply

Reply to an existing Threads post by providing the post ID and your reply text.

Instructions

Tra loi (reply) vao mot bai Threads.

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": {
      "reply_to_id": "<reply_to_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
reply_to_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'reply' without disclosing authentication needs, rate limits, error cases, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded, and concise. No wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter hints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. But it lacks details on error handling, success confirmation, or relationship to other tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%; description does not explain parameters. Parameter names ('text', 'reply_to_id') are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about expected formats, constraints, or behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool is for replying to a Threads post ('Tra loi (reply) vao mot bai Threads'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like post_text which likely create new threads.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or contrast with siblings like post_text or post_image.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools