Return recent mentions matched by competitor-role keywords, optionally narrowed to a single competitor name. Use this to see what people are publicly saying about rival products.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| competitor | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it matches by competitor-role keywords and can be narrowed by competitor name, but doesn't disclose behaviors like pagination, default time range, or what 'recent' means. It doesn't contradict annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. The structure is efficient and all words contribute to understanding.
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?
The tool is simple with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. Annotations cover safety, and the description states purpose and use case. However, missing parameter details (especially limit and date range) and no mention of return format leave some gaps. It's adequate but not complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'competitor' via 'optionally narrowed to a single competitor name' and implies time from 'recent', but does not explain 'to', 'from', or 'limit' parameters. The limit parameter is not mentioned, and the date-range semantics are left vague.
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 clearly states the tool returns 'recent mentions matched by competitor-role keywords' with an optional competitor-name filter. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_mentions and search_mentions, which are more generic.
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?
It provides a clear use case: 'Use this to see what people are publicly saying about rival products.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the specialized mention getters (get_competitor_signals, get_pain_signals) overlap with get_recent_mentions since that function also supports role filters. The unique filtering criteria for signals are described, reducing ambiguity, but an agent might hesitate between these options.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there is inconsistency between list_keywords and get_recent_mentions for list-like operations. The specialized signal getters also deviate slightly from the standard pattern, though all names remain readable.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a mention monitoring service. The tool set covers keyword management, mention retrieval, search, digest, and reply drafting without unnecessary overlap or excessive granularity.
The surface provides strong coverage of the domain: keyword lifecycle (create, list, update with pause), mention retrieval (by id, recent, search, digest, signals), and a feedback loop. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a delete_keyword or single-keyword getter, but these are workaround-able.
