Fetch the list of subreddits a user subscribes to, enabling personalized Reddit-based responses.
Get user's subscribed subreddits.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the basic 'Get' action and does not explain authentication behavior, what happens when access_token is omitted, whether this returns only the current user's subscriptions, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool name itself.
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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is concise and directly useful given the schema has no property descriptions. The formatting is a bit loose with extra whitespace, but every included piece of text serves a purpose.
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 simple, has an output schema, and the description covers both parameters and the core operation. However, it does not explain the role of access_token relative to stored credentials, nor explicitly state that it refers to the authenticated user. These are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call the tool, though the low complexity keeps the shortfall moderate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does: 'access_token: Optional access token' clarifies that the token is not mandatory, and 'limit: Number of subreddits to return (1-100, default 100)' adds a range and default beyond the schema. The token description is still somewhat vague, but it provides useful semantics that the schema lacks.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get user's subscribed subreddits.' The qualifier 'subscribed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_moderated_subreddits and get_contributor_subreddits, so an agent can identify the intended operation without opening the schema.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite closely related siblings such as get_moderated_subreddits and get_contributor_subreddits. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or mention any other tool by name. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.