meta-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'verification status' as a specific returned field, hinting at the data structure. However, it fails to confirm this is a safe read-only operation, describe the response format, mention rate limits, or clarify that it returns the authenticated user's profile given the empty parameter schema.

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 of nine words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and every word contributes meaning—specifying the platform (Threads), resource (user profile), and a key data point (verification status). No redundancy or filler is present.

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?

For a zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context by mentioning one specific returned field (verification status). However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify that it returns the authenticated user's profile object and note any API constraints (e.g., rate limits) to be considered complete.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). According to calibration rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, though it could have explicitly noted that the tool uses the authenticated user's context.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Threads user profile information'), distinguishing it from Instagram siblings (ig_*) by specifying 'Threads' and from content/analytics siblings (threads_get_user_threads, threads_get_user_insights) by focusing on 'profile'. The addition of 'including verification status' provides specific scope. However, it doesn't clarify whether this retrieves the authenticated user's profile or supports arbitrary user lookups.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ig_get_profile (Instagram vs Threads platforms) or threads_get_user_insights (profile metadata vs analytics). It omits prerequisites such as authentication requirements or token scopes needed to access profile data.

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