Retrieve a Threads profile with a connected account ID to check account details for monitoring, reporting, or audits.
Read your Threads profile using a connected account ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| is_verified | No | ||
| threads_biography | No | ||
| threads_profile_picture_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the account must be a 'connected' one, which is useful context, but says nothing about what happens with an unconnected or invalid account ID.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool whose parameter is undocumented in the schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. Still, the description leaves the sourcing of account_id and the failure mode for a non-connected account unaddressed.
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 0%, and the only parameter is an opaque numeric string reference. The description compensates slightly by calling it a 'connected account ID', implying the value comes from the connection flow, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read your Threads profile'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that publish, delete, list, or read insights. It does not name a sibling to distinguish against, but the operation 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 only implied: an agent infers this is the way to fetch the authenticated user's profile. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it, or on prerequisites such as the account needing to have been connected first via threads_connect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.