meta-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'public' scope and filtering capabilities but fails to disclose pagination mechanics (how 'after' cursor works), result set limits, rate limits, or what data structure is returned (critical given no output schema exists).

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 consists of two efficient, front-loaded sentences with zero redundancy. Every word serves to define scope or capability, making it appropriately sized for quick comprehension.

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 8 parameters including pagination cursors, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits how pagination functions, what the return payload contains, and any constraints on search queries (length, special characters) necessary for successful invocation.

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 maps high-level concepts to parameters ('filtered by media type' and 'author') but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., date format specifics for 'since'/'until' or pagination behavior for 'after').

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 identifies the action ('Search'), resource ('public Threads posts'), and key mechanisms ('by keyword or topic tag'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like threads_get_user_threads by specifying 'public' posts, though it does not explicitly contrast with specific alternatives.

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 states capabilities ('can be filtered') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like threads_get_posts or threads_get_user_threads. It does not advise on when to use keyword versus tag search, or when filtering by author is appropriate.

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