Retrieve subreddits where a user serves as moderator using an optional access token and customizable result limit.
Get subreddits where user is a moderator.
Args:
access_token: Optional access token
limit: Number of subreddits to return (1-100, default 100)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that access_token is optional, but does not clarify whether authentication is required, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens if no token is provided. It also does not mention rate limits or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely requires OAuth.
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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded and parameter details in a structured list. It is not verbose and every sentence earns its place. The format is slightly unconventional (code-style block) but remains efficient.
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?
The tool is a simple retrieval, and the output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. However, given no annotations, the description should explicitly note that authentication may be required (even if token is optional) and ideally differentiate it from similar tools. These gaps leave the agent with some uncertainty about preconditions.
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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: access_token is optional, and limit has a range (1-100) and default (100). This adds value beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and defaults. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is important and largely sufficient.
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 action: get subreddits where the user is a moderator. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_subreddits (subscriptions) and get_contributor_subreddits (contributions). The verb 'get' and resource 'moderated subreddits' are specific and unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or explicitly point to sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related queries. The purpose is clear, but the agent receives no direction on selection among the many similar retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.