Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Enterprise Threads MCP Server

Enterprise Threads MCP Server

by baguskto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

quote_post

Quote an existing Threads post and add your own commentary. Supports optional media and reply controls.

Instructions

Quote another thread/post with your own text

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": {
      "quoted_post_id": "<quoted_post_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "quote_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesYour quote text/commentary
media_urlNoURL of media to include (for IMAGE/VIDEO)
media_typeNoType of media (default: TEXT)
reply_controlNoWho can reply to this quote
quoted_post_idYesID of the post to quote

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv5.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose that the tool creates a new public post, potential rate limits, permission requirements, or how reply_control impacts visibility. This lack of context leaves significant uncertainty for the agent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, how media_url/media_type interact, or what reply_control means beyond the schema. The agent lacks enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior and outcome.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for all five parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter definitions. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the function: quoting a post with the user's own text. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like repost_thread (which shares without commentary) and create_reply (which responds directly), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repost_thread or create_reply. It implies a use case but does not mention exclusions or selection criteria.

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