Fetch engagement metrics—views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes—for a Threads post, or account-level metrics if no thread ID is supplied.
Fetch insights (views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes) for a specific thread or the Threads profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | No | Optional Thread ID. If omitted, fetches account-level metrics. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the metrics returned (views, likes, replies, reposts, quotes), which is helpful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core information an agent needs to know at a glance.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states what insights are fetched and for what scope. It could be improved by mentioning read-only nature or required permissions, but for a basic insights retrieval tool it covers the essentials.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter thread_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('insights ... for a specific thread or the Threads profile') and lists the metrics returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_threads_profile or get_instagram_media_insights, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: use it when you need insights for a thread or profile. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_threads_profile, get_instagram_media_insights) and no when-not conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.