SnoopScan

Test mentions keywords

testMentions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run keywords against the sources now and list what they find from the last 7 days, where a source allows. Nothing is saved. Sources: reddit, hackernews, bluesky, youtube, threads, web (blogs, forums and news), github (issues and pull requests), feeds (the RSS or Atom addresses in feeds), news (news articles), devfeeds (Product Hunt, DEV, Slashdot and Lobsters), stackexchange (Stack Overflow questions), fediverse (Lemmy and Misskey), podcasts (episodes), substack (newsletter posts), forums (the Discourse forums in places), appreviews (the review pages in places: App Store, Google Play, Trustpilot, Steam, Feefo, Reviews.io, Sitejabber, Yelp and Capterra links; every new review is a mention) and telegram (the public Telegram channels in places, such as https://t.me/name). Give keywords to try before creating a watch, or watchId to run a saved one. Each answered source query is recorded on the account's usage.

Needs a free SnoopScan key.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feeds`	No
`places`	No
`exclude`	No
`watchId`	No
`keywords`	No
`platforms`	No
`competitors`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / places

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Places"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / feeds

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Feeds"
+}

AddedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the 7-day lookback window, that 'nothing is saved', that every answered source query is billed to account usage, and that a free SnoopScan key is required. Those are exactly the operational facts (quota, auth, ephemerality) an agent needs before invoking a broad open-world scan.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core behaviour and the keyword-vs-watchId choice are front-loaded, which is good. But the source enumeration consumes most of the text, and the appreviews entry spills into a nine-service list with awkward line breaks — moderately justified since no parameter enums exist, but it reads as bloated rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Return values need not be described because an output schema exists, and the description covers the essentials an agent needs: no persistence, quota consumption, auth requirement, and the 7-day window. The remaining gap is that it never says which sources run when `platforms` is omitted, nor what `exclude` and `competitors` do.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it explains `keywords`, `watchId`, defines `feeds` as RSS/Atom addresses, and ties `places` to Discourse forums, review pages and Telegram channels. `exclude`, `platforms` and `competitors` are never defined — `platforms` is only indirectly inferable from the source list, and `exclude` and `competitors` get no explanation at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: run keywords against sources now and list what is found in the last 7 days, with nothing persisted. It also distinguishes itself from creating a watch ('try before creating a watch') and from running a saved watch ('watchId to run a saved one'), which lets an agent separate it from watchMentions and listMentions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule: pass `keywords` to preview before creating a watch, or `watchId` to re-run an existing one. It does not name the sibling tool to use for actually creating the watch, and it doesn't say when to prefer listMentions or watchMentions over this preview, so the routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SnoopScan tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.