Retrieve a parent post using its txid and view all replies organized as a conversation thread.
View a post and all its replies as a conversation thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | Yes | Txid of the parent post. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses this as a read operation ('View') and indicates the output is a thread of replies, which is basic behavioral info. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, reply nesting limits, or any side effects—so transparency is only partial.
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, concise sentence that states the purpose and scope without any filler. The essential action is front-loaded, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for making a correct call. However, it does not address potential confusion with siblings like peck_post_detail, and a note about when thread view is appropriate would improve completeness.
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?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter, txid, as 'Txid of the parent post.' The description does not add new meaning beyond that, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is 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 states a specific verb 'View' and a clear resource: 'a post and all its replies as a conversation thread'. This effectively distinguishes it from a single-post view, but it does not explicitly name any sibling tools or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies usage when a conversation thread is desired, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar ones like peck_post_detail. There are no exclusions or context about when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.