redreplier

Enable Keyword

enable_keyword

Re-activate a disabled keyword to resume monitoring mentions. It becomes active immediately if the plan allows, or after the required upgrade payment is processed.

Instructions

Re-activate one DISABLED keyword. It goes ACTIVE at once when it fits the plan or was disabled earlier in this billing cycle (it still holds its slot). Otherwise it is set PENDING and the required plan upgrade is charged immediately; it flips ACTIVE once the payment settles, so re-check with get_website. Use activate_pending_keywords instead to bring every PENDING keyword live in one call, and add_keywords for a keyword that does not exist yet. Preview cost with preview_keyword_billing first. Returns 400 without an active subscription; an ACTIVE keyword is returned unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keywordId`	Yes	Keyword ID (UUID)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	The keyword with status ACTIVE, or PENDING when an upgrade was charged and its payment has not settled yet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"The keyword with its resulting status (ACTIVE or PENDING)."New value: +"The keyword with status ACTIVE, or PENDING when an upgrade was charged and its payment has not settled yet."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only basic safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description enriches this with crucial behavior: conditional immediate activation, charging behavior, state transition to PENDING then ACTIVE, the 400 error without subscription, and unchanged handling of already-ACTIVE keywords. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph but every sentence adds value, covering behavior, alternatives, and edge cases. It is front-loaded with the core action and slightly verbose but not bloated.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (conditional state transitions, billing implications) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: when it activates immediately, when it goes pending, what to re-check with get_website, error conditions, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

The single parameter keywordId is fully documented in the schema (UUID), with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's sufficiency, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool re-activates a disabled keyword, with explicit conditions for immediate activation vs pending. It distinguishes itself from siblings activate_pending_keywords and add_keywords by name, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly names alternatives (activate_pending_keywords for bulk pending, add_keywords for new keywords) and recommends preview_keyword_billing for cost. It also explains the scenario-dependent behavior, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it.

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