Skip to main content
Glama
ishan-parihar

threads-lyr

by ishan-parihar
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two data-fetching tools are clearly distinct: one retrieves profile metadata, the other retrieves user's posts. The close_session tool is obviously a lifecycle utility and does not overlap with the data access tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_threads_profile, get_user_threads, and close_session. This makes the intended action and target clear at a glance.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for a lightweight Threads reader/API client. It's slightly on the low end but each tool serves a purpose, so the count is reasonable.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the core read-only operations: fetching a profile and fetching recent threads. However, there is no tool for retrieving a single thread's details or replies, which could be a minor gap depending on the use case. Overall, the surface is sufficient for basic public Threads data access.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'public' threads (excluding private) and 'recent' (time-based scoping), which go beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and structurally efficient.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The tool is simple, with a complete input schema, output schema present, and annotations covering safety. The description adequately covers the tool's scope ('public', 'recent', 'for a user') without requiring extra explanation of return values or error handling.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (username and limit, including default and range). The description adds no extra parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent public threads') for a user, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_threads_profile (profile-oriented) and close_session (session management). It unambiguously states what the tool does.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The name implies it is for user threads, but explicit differentiation from siblings is absent.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'public' which clarifies that no special access or authentication is needed, going slightly beyond the annotations. No other behavioral traits (errors, limits) are disclosed, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It uses the active verb 'Get' and immediately states the target resource and input, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the core action and scope. The output schema handles return values, so no additional description of results is necessary.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the username parameter ('Threads username (e.g. 'zuck')'). The tool description only reiterates 'by username' without adding new meaning. Baseline score of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a public Threads profile by username.' This identifies a specific verb (Get), resource (Threads profile), and input (username). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_threads (which likely retrieves posts) and close_session (session management).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The intended usage is implied: use this when you need a Threads profile by username. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_user_threads or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    While annotations already flag this as destructive, the description adds meaningful context: it closes *all active* scrape clients and cleans up resources. This goes beyond the simple destructive hint by specifying the scope and nature of the cleanup, though it does not detail side effects like termination of ongoing operations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence that clearly conveys the action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and a destructive annotation, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does. It could mention whether calling it without an active session is safe, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The input schema is empty and fully covered. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to provide.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Close all active scrape clients and clean up resources.' It uses a specific verb ('close') and resource ('scrape clients'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are getter functions for threads profiles and user threads.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage as a cleanup or teardown operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'call when done scraping') or contrast it with alternatives. Sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, but no direct guidance on when to invoke this tool is provided.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

threads-lyr MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

threads-lyr MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ishan-parihar/threads-lyr'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server