get_auto_completeauto-complete Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nsfw | No | - Whether to retrieve content that is not safe for work (e.g., 18+ content) - Default: `false` - The `true` is yes, the `false` is no | |
| limit | No | - Limit - Default: `5` - The `limit` has a value from 1 to 10 | |
| query | No | - Required: true - Ex: `gaming` |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only mentions billing cost per call, but omits output shape, side effects, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation.
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 short but under-specified: 'auto-complete Billing per call: 1 Credits.' contains no functional explanation. This is not effective conciseness; it omits essential information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and use context. It does not. The input schema is helpful, but the overall description is incomplete for an agent to know what get_auto_complete returns or when to call it.
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%, with parameter descriptions for nsfw, limit, and query providing defaults, examples, and ranges. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'auto-complete Billing per call: 1 Credits' adds only a billing note and essentially repeats the tool title. It does not state a clear verb, resource, or what the tool actually does beyond implying autocomplete functionality.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_search_media or get_posts_search_posts. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are easily confused: get_posts_comments, get_subreddit_comments, and get_search_comments all involve comments but target different scopes; similarly, get_subreddit_search, get_posts_search_posts, and get_search_* tools overlap in search functionality. Without detailed descriptions, an agent might select the wrong endpoint for a given intent.
All tools start with 'get_', providing a consistent verb prefix. However, the structure after the prefix varies: some use entity-first (get_subreddit_comments), some action-first (get_search_comments), and one is awkward (get_posts_search_posts). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.
Ten tools is a reasonable and well-scoped number for a Reddit read-only API server. It covers search across multiple entities and basic content retrieval without feeling bloated or too sparse.
The tool surface is heavily read-focused, covering search and content fetch, but omits many core Reddit operations such as creating posts, commenting, voting, or retrieving user profiles and subreddit details. Some endpoints like get_subreddit_awarding_totals seem niche, while more common ones (e.g., get_subreddit_info) are absent.