meta-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully lists the available metric types (views, likes, etc.), but omits other behavioral traits like whether data is real-time or cached, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 action and resource. Every element serves a purpose: the verb ('Get'), the resource ('insights/analytics'), the scope ('specific Threads post'), and the exemplar metrics. Zero redundancy or waste.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It identifies the return values implicitly through the metric list, though explicitly stating the return structure would elevate this to a 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces the metric options by listing them parenthetically, but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or semantic context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action (Get insights/analytics), resource (Threads post), and distinguishes from siblings like 'threads_get_user_insights' by emphasizing 'post' level granularity. The parenthetical list of metrics further clarifies the specific data returned.

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?

While the description implies usage through specificity ('for a specific Threads post'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'threads_get_user_insights' or 'threads_get_posts'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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