Extract complete nested Reddit comments from any thread URL or ID, allowing configurable depth for focused analysis.
Read a full Reddit thread and extract the complete hierarchical nested comment tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | Maximum nesting depth to parse | |
| thread_url_or_id | Yes | Post URL or post ID (t3_...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Read' and the tool name, and it states the output is a nested comment tree. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the output includes the original post content in addition to comments. The core behavior is conveyed, but depth is lacking.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the expected result with no redundancy. It is efficient and immediately understandable, with no wasted words.
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 relatively simple with two parameters well covered in the schema. The description indicates the output (nested comment tree) but does not specify whether the original post body is included, how max_depth affects truncation, or any error conditions. With no output schema, more detail would be helpful, but the current description is minimally adequate.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions (thread_url_or_id and max_depth). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra value is contributed.
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 clearly states the verb (Read), the resource (a Reddit thread), and the specific outcome (extract the complete hierarchical nested comment tree). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reddit_browse_subreddit or reddit_browse_user, which focus on listing posts or user activity, by focusing on a single thread's full comment structure.
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 clear context: use this when you need the full nested comment tree of a specific thread. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from all siblings that an agent can infer when to select it. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.