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. It discloses the aliasing behavior and 'user context' scoping, but lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limiting, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would help an agent handle edge cases.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately clarifies the relationship to the sibling tool. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple retrieval purpose and complete input schema, the description is adequate but lacks mention of the return value structure (no output schema exists to compensate). For a tool with no annotations, additional context about the response format would improve agent utility.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters (limit, since, until, after). The description does not add semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., explaining that 'since'/'until' filter publication dates or that 'after' handles pagination), warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 all threads published by the user') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'threads_get_posts' by noting it is an alias with 'user context', making the scope distinction immediately clear.

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 identifies the sibling relationship ('alias for threads_get_posts'), implying this tool adds user-specific scoping. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over 'threads_get_posts' or other alternatives like 'threads_search_posts'.

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