redreplier

List Mentions

list_mentions

Read-only

List AI-scored mentions from Reddit, Hacker News, X, and Bluesky, filterable by source, keyword, status, relevance, and date. Sort by relevance or recency and paginate to triage the best leads.

Instructions

List mentions matched for this account across Reddit, Hacker News, X, and Bluesky, each AI-scored 0-100 with its source, matched keyword, status, content, and any generated relevanceReason and aiReplySuggestion. Two defaults hide rows: REJECTED mentions are excluded unless statuses names them, and mentions below the website's minimum score (30 by default) are hidden unless includeLowRelevance is true, even when scoreBuckets asks for LOW or VERY_LOW. Returns { mentions, total, limit, offset }; page with offset while offset < total. Sort RELEVANCE for the best leads, RECENT for what is new; from/to filter on ingestion time, not publish time. Use count_mentions for the number alone, explain_mention for one mention's reasoning, and update_mention_status to triage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Only mentions ingested at/before this ISO 8601 datetime
`from`	No	Only mentions ingested at/after this ISO 8601 datetime
`sort`	No	RELEVANCE (default, highest score first) or RECENT (newest first)
`limit`	No	Max results (1-500)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`sources`	No	Filter by source: REDDIT_POST, REDDIT_COMMENT, TWITTER (X), BLUESKY, HACKERNEWS
`keywords`	No	Filter to mentions matched by these keyword values (case-insensitive exact match, as shown in list_websites)
`statuses`	No	Filter by status (NEW, APPROVED, REJECTED); omit to get everything except REJECTED
`websiteId`	No	Filter to one website (UUID)
`scoreBuckets`	No	Relevance buckets, OR-combined: VERY_LOW (<10), LOW (10-29), MEDIUM (30-49), HIGH (50-74), VERY_HIGH (75+). LOW and VERY_LOW only show when includeLowRelevance is also true
`includeLowRelevance`	No	Include mentions below the website minimum score (30 by default), hidden otherwise

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	{ mentions, total, limit, offset }: each mention has id, source, keyword, title, contentText, url, author, subreddit (Reddit only), status, relevanceScore, relevanceReason, aiReplySuggestion, tags, publishedAt, ingestedAt, reviewedAt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / includeLowRelevance / description

Previous value: -"Include mentions scoring below 30 (hidden by default)"New value: +"Include mentions below the website minimum score (30 by default), hidden otherwise"

changedInput schema / properties / keywords / description

Previous value: -"Filter to mentions matched by these keywords"New value: +"Filter to mentions matched by these keyword values (case-insensitive exact match, as shown in list_websites)"

changedInput schema / properties / scoreBuckets / description

Previous value: -"Relevance buckets: VERY_LOW (<10), LOW (10-29), MEDIUM (30-49), HIGH (50-74), VERY_HIGH (75+)"New value: +"Relevance buckets, OR-combined: VERY_LOW (<10), LOW (10-29), MEDIUM (30-49), HIGH (50-74), VERY_HIGH (75+). LOW and VERY_LOW only show when includeLowRelevance is also true"

changedInput schema / properties / statuses / description

Previous value: -"Filter by status (NEW, APPROVED, REJECTED)"New value: +"Filter by status (NEW, APPROVED, REJECTED); omit to get everything except REJECTED"

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"Array of mentions, each with its source, matched keyword, relevance score, status, and content."New value: +"{ mentions, total, limit, offset }: each mention has id, source, keyword, title, contentText, url, author, subreddit (Reddit only), status, relevanceScore, relevanceReason, aiReplySuggestion, tags, publishedAt, ingestedAt, reviewedAt."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the REJECTED default exclusion, the below-min-score (30) hiding that overrides even scoreBuckets=LOW/VERY_LOW, pagination semantics (offset while offset < total), and the ingestion-time vs publish-time distinction for from/to. 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?

Long, but every sentence earns its place for an 11-parameter tool with tricky defaults. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then defaults, return shape, sorting, and sibling routing in a logical order. Slightly denser than strictly necessary but well organized.

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?

Comprehensive for a complex read tool: return shape matches the output schema, default filtering behaviors are fully disclosed, pagination is explained, the scoreBuckets/includeLowRelevance interaction is clarified, and sibling routing is explicit. Given the output schema exists, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics the schema alone cannot convey — notably that scoreBuckets=LOW/VERY_LOW only shows when includeLowRelevance is also true, and the 30-default minimum. This is genuine added meaning beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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+resource+scope: 'List mentions matched for this account across Reddit, Hacker News, X, and Bluesky.' It details the returned fields (source, keyword, status, content, relevanceReason, aiReplySuggestion) and names the sibling tools it is not (count_mentions, explain_mention, update_mention_status), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use count_mentions for the number alone, explain_mention for one mention's reasoning, and update_mention_status to triage.' It also gives selection guidance within the tool itself — 'Sort RELEVANCE for the best leads, RECENT for what is new' — leaving nothing to inference.

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