Fetch one mention by id with its full record: title, AI summary, sentiment, relevance score, suggested action, source, and matched keyword. Only returns mentions owned by this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership restriction and lists the record fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. The field list is a bit long but directly useful for a get-by-id operation.
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 single-fetch tool with no output schema, the description lists expected return fields and ownership scoping, which is fairly complete. It omits behavior for nonexistent ids or unauthorized access, but these are not critical for such a simple tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the only parameter 'id'. It does say 'by id', clarifying that id is the mention identifier, but does not provide format or additional detail. This is minimal augmentation over the schema.
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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one mention by id', and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_mentions or search_mentions, which operate on collections or search queries.
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 use case is implied: when you have a specific mention id and need the full record. The ownership constraint ('Only returns mentions owned by this account') provides context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named relative to siblings.
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.
