Return one grouped catch-up brief of recent mentions, split into owned brand mentions, competitor signals, demand signals, and conversations worth replying to. Use this when a single summary is wanted instead of separate queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the output is grouped into owned brand mentions, competitor signals, demand signals, and conversations, which is more than the annotations provide. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool this is acceptable.
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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and deliverable; the second adds a direct usage guideline. Every word earns its place.
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?
While the purpose and usage are clearly described, the complete absence of parameter semantics is a critical gap, especially given 0% schema coverage. The description also doesn't explain how 'limit' affects the grouped result or the exact structure of each category. For a simple read-only tool, this is still incomplete.
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 description provides no explanation for 'to', 'from', or 'limit'. The phrase 'recent mentions' is too vague to map to these parameters. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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?
Description uses the specific verb 'Return' and defines a concrete deliverable: 'one grouped catch-up brief of recent mentions' split into four named categories. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_mentions or search_mentions, which would require separate queries for each category.
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 final sentence provides a clear usage condition: 'Use this when a single summary is wanted instead of separate queries.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over querying individually, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions.
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.
