get_subreddit_infoRetrieve public metadata for a named subreddit—title, description, subscribers, active users, creation time, NSFW flag, and submission type.
Subreddit metadata: title, public description, subscribers, active users, creation time, NSFW flag, submission type. Read-only, anonymous.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subreddit_name | Yes | Subreddit name without the r/ prefix (e.g. 'AskReddit'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. However, 'anonymous' adds genuine context (no authentication required), and the field list hints at the response shape. What is missing is failure behavior for nonexistent, private, or banned subreddits, which is meaningful for an open-world read tool.
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?
A single compact sentence with zero filler; the field list is front-loaded and immediately useful. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation and makes the return value predictable. The only gap is error/edge-case behavior (missing or private subreddit), which for a simple anonymous read tool is a minor omission.
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 100% and the single parameter documents the 'no r/ prefix' convention with an example, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable here but earns only the baseline.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (title, public description, subscribers, active users, creation time, NSFW flag, submission type) which is a concrete, specific resource statement. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_subreddit_rules or browse_subreddit, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives. With siblings like get_subreddit_rules, browse_subreddit, and get_trending_subreddits in the set, the agent gets no routing guidance; the name alone carries the selection burden.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.