Search Reddit media by query, time, type, and sort. Use to find images and videos matching your criteria.
Search media
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| t | No | Timeframe | |
| kind | No | Media kind | all |
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation is present and not contradicted, but the description contributes no behavioral detail: nothing about pagination via the 'after' cursor, default sort behavior, NSFW handling, limits, or what the response looks like. The annotation covers safety only, so the description itself is behaviorally empty.
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 are undeniably concise and front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification for a tool with seven parameters and several sibling alternatives. There is no structural content, such as a clarifying sentence, to help an agent understand 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?
Despite a fully documented schema, the description leaves out how the tool behaves, what it returns, and when it applies relative to similar sibling search tools. With no output schema and no usage context, an agent has too little information to confidently select and invoke this tool.
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 every parameter already has meaningful documentation in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the word 'media,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource ('Search media') but is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no indication of what exactly counts as media or how it differs from sibling search tools like get_search, get_search_communities, or get_search_users. The schema later clarifies kind filters, but the description itself is vague without that external context.
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 the many similar sibling search tools. No intended use cases, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.