Search Reddit comments by query, with filters for timeframe, sort order, and NSFW content. Returns paginated results for analysis.
Search comments
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| t | No | Timeframe | |
| nsfw | No | true to include NSFW results | |
| sort | No | Sort order | relevance |
| after | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response | |
| limit | No | Items to return, 1-100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, NSFW handling, or whether the search covers all comments or a limited scope; with no output schema, the agent gets little signal about behavior.
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?
Two words is concise, but this is under-specification rather than appropriately sized structure. It does not front-load any scoping or behavioral caveat and provides no value beyond restating the tool's 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?
Given six parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, a two-word description is incomplete. There is no mention of what the response contains, how results are scoped, or how this differs from other comment/search tools.
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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already documents q, t, nsfw, sort, after, and limit clearly.
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 'Search comments' states the operation and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no scope or context. It does little to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_comments or get_search.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_comments, get_search, or get_search_media. With many sibling search tools, the agent must infer the right choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.