threads-mcp-server

threads_get_profile

Retrieve a Threads profile by user ID, with selectable fields. Pass 'me' to fetch the authenticated account and discover your numeric ID.

Instructions

A Threads profile. Pass user_id='me' for the authenticated account, which is also how you find your own numeric id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "threads_get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	No	Comma-separated. Defaults to id,username,threads_profile_picture_url.
`user_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'A Threads profile' and the user_id convention. It does not disclose whether the endpoint is read-only, requires authentication for other users' profiles, or what happens with invalid IDs, leaving the agent to infer the behavior from the name.

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?

At two sentences, it is compact and contains no filler. The second sentence is a useful tip, but the first sentence is a fragment that could be strengthened to an active verb phrase without increasing length.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential user_id trick and the schema covers fields. However, it omits response format, authentication expectations, and any distinction from sibling tools, leaving the agent to fill in gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema describes 'fields' but leaves 'user_id' undocumented, and the description compensates by explaining the special 'me' value and how to discover one's own numeric id. This is meaningful semantic information beyond the schema, though it still doesn't fully explain what user_id represents in general.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description opens with the noun phrase 'A Threads profile' rather than an explicit action like 'Gets a Threads profile,' so the operation is left to inference from the tool name. It identifies the resource and the special user_id='me' convention, but doesn't clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as threads_get_my_posts. The only usage hint, 'Pass user_id='me' for the authenticated account,' addresses parameter input, not selection context.

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

Deploy Server