Update one existing monitored keyword by id: change its role, context, active state, minimum relevance threshold, excluded content types, or exclusion terms. Use list_keywords to find the id. Pausing a keyword sets is_active to false rather than deleting it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| role | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| min_relevance | No | ||
| exclusion_terms | No | ||
| excluded_content_types | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds the behavioral detail that pausing sets is_active to false rather than deleting, which is not visible in annotations. It also confirms the update-by-id working model.
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?
Three compact sentences with no redundant information; the purpose, usage hint, and behavioral nuance are all communicated efficiently.
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 7-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete picture of what can be updated and the key non-deletion behavior. It does not describe return values or error cases, but these are not expected given the simplicity and annotations.
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 compensates by enumerating all updatable parameters: role, context, active state, min_relevance, excluded content types, and exclusion terms, mapping directly to the schema properties. The id parameter is also referenced. It doesn't add constraints or enum details, but schema handles those.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), identifies the resource ('monitored keyword'), and requires an id, while listing the editable fields. It clearly distinguishes from create_keyword and list_keywords.
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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_keywords to find the id, providing a clear prerequisite, and clarifies the pausing behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with create_keyword, but the context is clear enough.
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.
