Read crawl-run activity: a summary (total runs, errored runs, new posts, matched, stored bytes) plus a paginated list of recent runs with per-run fetched/matched/new/duration and any error. NOT metered. (requires a free Prowlo account — call it to get a signup link)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max crawl runs to return, 1-100 (default 30) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: non-metered status, the account requirement, and the fact that calling it can yield a signup link. It also outlines the exact response composition (summary fields, per-run fields, pagination), going beyond the structured 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then efficiently lists response contents and operational notes. Every clause delivers functional or contextual value with no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the fields in the summary and per-run data, as well as pagination and error handling. It also addresses operational concerns (metering, authentication) that an agent needs to know. This is complete for a read tool with this complexity.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'limit' and 'cursor', including constraints. The description's mention of a 'paginated list' aligns with cursor pagination but adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Read') and the resource ('crawl-run activity'), and enumerates what is returned (summary + paginated list). This distinguishes it from any sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 by noting the tool is 'NOT metered' and requires a free account, which are relevant selection and cost factors. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it falls 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.
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.
