Fetch one Dataset record by id (full body + intent/embedding signals + tags). NOT a live Reddit call — free, rate-limited only. (requires a free Prowlo account — call it to get a signup link)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id (from list_records / search_dataset) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavior context: it is free, rate-limited, requires an account, and returns full record details. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 focused sentence with a parenthetical about account requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no wasted words.
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-record fetch with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the non-live nature, and the account prerequisite. This is complete for the tool's 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 has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a description of where the id comes from. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline score 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 tool fetches one Dataset record by id, with specifics on what is returned (full body + intent/embedding signals + tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_records and search_dataset.
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 context that this is not a live Reddit call and mentions a required account, implying when to use it over live data tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.
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.
