Skip to main content
Glama
mypracticaltools

Reddit MCP Server

by mypracticaltools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.9

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: reddit_fast_search is for general information gathering across posts, comments, or users, while reddit_lead_monitor is specifically for finding high-intent leads or brand mentions with noise filtering. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the prefix 'reddit_' followed by a descriptive phrase using snake_case (fast_search, lead_monitor). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in style or convention.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a Reddit MCP server, which typically involves operations like browsing subreddits, posting, commenting, or managing user interactions. This limited set may hinder agents from performing common Reddit-related tasks, making it too thin for the apparent domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a Reddit server, lacking basic CRUD operations such as creating posts, retrieving subreddit details, or managing user profiles. While search and monitoring are covered, there are significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in broader Reddit workflows, as core functionalities are missing.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering out noise' and finding 'high-intent leads,' which hints at output behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines for clarity.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a search tool. It covers the high-level purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and error handling. The schema handles parameters well, but overall context is adequate with clear gaps that could hinder effective tool use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that 'keywords' are for 'buyers' or specific discussions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find high-intent leads or brand mentions while filtering out noise.' It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'leads or brand mentions,' and distinguishes it from noise filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'reddit_fast_search' beyond implying a focus on 'buyers' or specific discussions.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides some usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to find 'buyers' or specific discussions.' This implies when to use it but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tool 'reddit_fast_search.' The guidance is present but incomplete for optimal decision-making.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Quickly search' and 'Best for general information gathering,' which hints at performance and use case but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully comprehensive.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (query, subreddits, limit, sort). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying a general search scope without specifying parameter interactions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding significantly.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Quickly search for Reddit posts, comments, or users.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Reddit posts, comments, or users'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'reddit_lead_monitor', which might have overlapping or distinct functionality.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides some usage context with 'Best for general information gathering,' which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as how it differs from 'reddit_lead_monitor'. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Reddit-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Reddit-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mypracticaltools/Reddit-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server