Retrieve thread metadata to inspect session details and coordination state across connected coding agents. Use this to verify thread information when managing agent interactions.
Read thread metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threadId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds a mild scoping detail by saying 'metadata' rather than full thread messages, but it does not disclose response shape, possible errors, or any other behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core operation efficiently, though it is so terse that it carries little beyond the tool name itself.
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?
This is a low-complexity, read-only, single-parameter tool, so the minimal description is partially adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of what metadata is returned, the agent still lacks some context needed to interpret the result.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the threadId parameter beyond what the property name/type already imply. While a single string threadId is fairly self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('thread metadata'), and it is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools: get_thread_messages would read messages, and list_threads would list threads. Even without an explicit comparison, an agent can infer the tool's narrow scope.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thread_messages or list_threads. No contexts, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions are mentioned, so the agent must rely on naming conventions alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.