Send private direct messages to Reddit users with human-like typing cadence for authentic engagement.
Send a private direct message (PM) to a Reddit user with human typing cadence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Markdown message body | |
| subject | Yes | Message subject | |
| recipient | Yes | Recipient Reddit username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the human-like typing cadence, which is a meaningful behavioral trait (likely to avoid detection or rate limits), but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or potential side effects. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive disclosure.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key behavioral nuance. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and one important behavioral trait. The schema handles parameter documentation. Missing context like rate limits or failure modes is minor for this straightforward operation, so it is largely complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for recipient, subject, and body. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per the rubric, this is a baseline 3 given high schema coverage.
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 explicitly states the action (send a private direct message), the resource (Reddit user), and even a distinguishing behavioral detail (human typing cadence). It clearly separates this tool from the sibling tools, none of which handle private messaging.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when to choose a different reddit tool. This is adequate but lacks proactive routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.