Read recent operational alerts derived from real failures: errored crawl runs (critical) and failed webhook deliveries (warning), merged and time-sorted. NOT metered. (requires a free Prowlo account — call it to get a signup link)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max operational alerts to return, 1-50 (default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: 'NOT metered' (no cost), alerts are 'merged and time-sorted', and it requires a free Prowlo account. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.
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 extremely concise: two sentences. It front-loads the core action and resource, then provides critical qualifiers ('NOT metered', account requirement) in a parenthetical. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 (one parameter, no output schema) and the description adequately covers its behavior: what alerts are, their types, ordering, and access requirements. It could mention the return format (fields of each alert), but for this complexity level, the description is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% and the 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema (1-50, default 20). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden. This aligns with the baseline of 3.
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 ('Read') and resource ('recent operational alerts'), and explicitly defines what these alerts are: 'errored crawl runs (critical) and failed webhook deliveries (warning), merged and time-sorted.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like alert_list, which likely handle user-configured alerts.
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 description provides clear context: it reads operational alerts derived from real failures. It also notes 'NOT metered' and mentions the account requirement with a signup link, which helps the agent decide when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit 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.
Several tool pairs have overlapping purposes: keyword_* and tag_rule_* are duplicates, keyword_monitor_create is a shortcut for a subset of watcher_create, and alert_list vs get_alerts have confusingly similar names. Even though descriptions are detailed, the redundancy and naming overlap make it easy to pick the wrong tool.
The set mixes object-verb names (alert_create, watcher_create) with verb-object names (get_account, list_records) and prefix-based categories (social_*). The deprecated keyword_* tools are renamed tag_rule_*, and keyword_monitor_create doesn't follow the watcher_* pattern, creating an inconsistent naming scheme.
At 42 tools, the surface is far above the typical well-scoped range, with 5 deprecated tools and redundant paths like keyword_monitor_create vs watcher_create inflating the count. A leaner set focusing on core operations would be more manageable.
The Reddit/HN monitoring and alerting side is well covered with CRUD for watchers, tag rules, alerts, and trends plus dataset and social reads. However, the server advertises X support but has no X tools, and there's no way to post comments or manage integrations beyond viewing account info, leaving notable gaps.
