meta-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: rate limits, that posts are public/create persistent content, authentication requirements, or immutability after publishing. It only lists functional capabilities.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste: front-loaded with the core action, followed by optional capability enumeration. Every word earns its place.

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 10-parameter publishing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers basic functionality but omits operational context like error scenarios, return values, or the existence of publishing limits that should be checked beforehand.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description summarizes optional features (link, poll, GIF, etc.) but adds no semantic depth beyond the schema's existing documentation of parameters.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('text-only post on Threads'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like threads_publish_image and threads_publish_video by emphasizing 'text-only'.

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 'text-only' implies when to use this versus media-focused siblings, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use quote features versus threads_reply, or prerequisites like checking publishing limits via threads_get_publishing_limit.

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