meta-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully enumerates available metrics (views, likes, etc.), but omits operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, time granularity, or return value format. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with optimal front-loading: action verb first, scope qualifier second, specific capabilities in parentheses. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or filler text.

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?

Adequately complete for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage. Description covers the 'what' (available metrics) effectively. Minor gap: no output schema exists, and description doesn't clarify return format (object vs array) or time-series granularity, though metric enumeration compensates partially.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by surfacing the valid metric options (views, likes, etc.) in the main text where they're immediately visible, reinforcing the schema's comma-separated list and making the tool's capabilities scannable at a glance.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Get) and resource (account-level Threads insights), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'threads_get_post_insights' by specifying 'account-level' scope. Lists all available metrics to clarify what insights are retrievable.

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?

Provides implicit guidance through 'account-level' designation, suggesting use for aggregate metrics rather than individual post analysis. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings like 'threads_get_post_insights' or 'ig_get_account_insights'.

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