Reddit MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
There is significant overlap and confusion among tools, particularly between 'get_reddit_post' and 'get_submission' (which appear to serve the same purpose), and between 'get_subreddit' and 'get_subreddit_info'. The mix of English and French descriptions further complicates clarity, making it difficult for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool without trial and error.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'create_post', 'get_comment'), but there are notable inconsistencies such as 'get_reddit_post' vs. 'get_submission' (both likely for posts) and the inclusion of 'test_reddit_mcp_server' which breaks the pattern. The mix of English and French in tool names adds to the inconsistency, though the core structure is readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 17 tools, the count is on the higher side but still reasonable for a Reddit API server, covering various aspects like posts, comments, subreddits, users, and search. It's slightly heavy but not excessive, as Reddit's domain involves multiple entities and actions that justify a broader toolset.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides good coverage for core Reddit operations, including CRUD-like actions (create, get, search) for posts, comments, subreddits, and users. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit update or delete tools for posts or comments, but agents can likely work around this using existing tools like 'reply_to_post' or by re-fetching data. The inclusion of trending and search tools enhances completeness.
Average 2.8/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Test' could imply anything from diagnostic checks to validation operations, but there's no indication of what the tool actually does, what side effects it might have, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about behavioral characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While front-loaded, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence structure is simple but fails to convey necessary tool semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'testing' means, what gets tested, what the expected output format might be, or how this differs from the many sibling tools. Given the complexity implied by having 15 specialized sibling tools, this description provides insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate given the empty input schema. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test the Reddit MCP Server' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It doesn't specify what action 'test' entails or what resources are involved, making it vague about the actual purpose. While it mentions the server context, it fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings that perform specific Reddit operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 15 sibling tools listed. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no usage direction. This is particularly problematic given the many specialized sibling tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states the action without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a read operation.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get a Reddit post', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than effective communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., post details, comments, metadata) or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with two required parameters and multiple siblings.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('subreddit' and 'post_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema adequately documents the inputs, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Reddit post' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('Reddit post') but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_submission' or 'get_user_posts', leaving ambiguity about scope or uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_submission' or 'get_user_posts'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, failing to help an agent choose appropriately among similar tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'access a submission', which implies a read operation but fails to detail critical traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format includes (e.g., submission data, error handling). This leaves the agent with insufficient information about how the tool 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 a single, concise phrase ('Accéder à une soumission') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for effective tool use. While efficient in structure, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'access' entails, the return values, or behavioral aspects like safety or authentication needs. For a tool in a Reddit context with multiple siblings, more context is required to guide the agent adequately.
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, with the single parameter 'submission_id' clearly documented as 'L'ID de la soumission à récupérer' (The ID of the submission to retrieve). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Accéder à une soumission' (Access a submission) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_submission' in French. It provides a vague purpose without specifying what 'access' entails (e.g., retrieve details, view content, fetch metadata) or distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_reddit_post' or 'get_comments_by_submission'. This lack of specificity makes it minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid submission_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'get_reddit_post' or 'get_comments_by_submission', leaving the agent without context for selection. This absence of usage instructions is a significant gap.
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. It states 'access' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format might be. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.
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 a single, efficient sentence in French, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'access' means operationally, the expected return value, or how it fits among sibling tools. For a basic retrieval tool, more context is needed to ensure proper 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, with 'comment_id' clearly documented as 'L'ID du commentaire à récupérer' (The ID of the comment to retrieve). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Accéder à un commentaire spécifique' (Access a specific comment) states a clear verb ('access') and resource ('comment'), but it's vague about what 'access' entails—it could mean retrieve, view, or fetch. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_user_comments' or 'get_comments_by_submission', which are related but not identical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that this is for a single comment by ID, unlike 'get_user_comments' for multiple comments by user or 'get_comments_by_submission' for comments on a submission. The description implies usage for a specific comment but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
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 only states the basic purpose without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, what happens if the subreddit doesn't exist, or what format the information is returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured information about subreddits. It doesn't hint at what information is returned (e.g., description, subscriber count, rules), nor does it address error conditions or behavioral aspects. The description alone is insufficient for confident tool invocation.
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 schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'subreddit_name' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., 'programming' vs 'r/programming') or constraints. With high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a subreddit' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('subreddit'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_subreddit' (which appears to be a near-duplicate) or 'get_user_info' (which focuses on users rather than subreddits).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_subreddit', 'search_subreddits', and 'get_trending_subreddits', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what makes it different from other subreddit-related tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates content but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether posts are immediately public, editing capabilities, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a content creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, error conditions, response format, or how this differs from sibling tools. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new post in a subreddit', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'reply_to_post' or explain what differentiates a post from other content types in the Reddit context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reply_to_post' or 'get_reddit_post'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (authentication needs, subreddit permissions) or contextual constraints for creating posts.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Accéder aux' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the comments come in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 a single, efficient French phrase that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (comment objects, just text, metadata?), whether results are paginated, or any error conditions. Given the lack of structured information elsewhere, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results.
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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema fully documents both parameters (submission_id and limit with default), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 verb ('Accéder aux' - access) and resource ('commentaires d'une soumission' - comments of a submission), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_comment' or 'get_user_comments', which could retrieve similar data through different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_comment' or 'get_user_comments'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison with sibling tools that might retrieve similar data through different parameters or scopes.
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. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Accéder à' entails (e.g., returns subreddit details, posts, or metadata) or address behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameter 'subreddit_name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Accéder à') and resource ('un subreddit par nom'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subreddit_info' or 'search_subreddits', which likely serve similar purposes but with different scopes or parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_subreddit_info' and 'search_subreddits', the description lacks context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
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 states 'Get top posts' but doesn't explain what 'top' means (e.g., by upvotes, hotness), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or the return format (e.g., list of posts with fields). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic input-output.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There's no wasted space or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fetching posts with parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'top' entails, the structure of returned data, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves the agent under-informed for proper 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'subreddit', 'time_filter', and 'limit' with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying filtering by time and quantity, which is already covered. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('top posts from a subreddit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_subreddit_info' or 'search_posts' by specifying 'top posts' rather than general information or search results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_submission' or 'get_reddit_post', which might fetch individual posts, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_posts', 'get_submission', and 'get_user_posts', there's no indication of when 'top posts' is preferred, such as for trending content versus specific queries. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.
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 states the tool retrieves a 'detailed analysis' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., types of activity, time frames, metrics) or behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is too vague to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose, leaving significant gaps in understanding its operation.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a bit more context to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity, but it's well-structured as is.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of analyzing user activity and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'detailed analysis' entails, such as the format of the output, types of data returned, or any limitations. Without this information, the agent lacks sufficient context to understand what the tool provides, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns rich, structured data about user behavior.
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, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'username' (Reddit username) and 'limit' (number of activity items to analyze, default 50). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without needing extra detail in the description.
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: 'Obtenir une analyse détaillée de l'activité d'un utilisateur' (Get a detailed analysis of a user's activity). It specifies the verb ('obtenir une analyse') and resource ('activité d'un utilisateur'), making the intent clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_info, get_user_comments, or get_user_posts, which also retrieve user-related data but focus on specific aspects rather than a comprehensive activity analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_user_info (for basic user data), get_user_comments (for comment history), or get_user_posts (for post history), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the vague term 'activité' (activity). There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it difficult to choose appropriately among related tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves comment history but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what format the returned data takes. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no unnecessary verbiage or structural issues - it's appropriately concise and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral aspects like whether this is a safe read operation. For a data retrieval tool in this context, more completeness is needed.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Obtenir l'historique des commentaires d'un utilisateur' clearly states the purpose: retrieving a user's comment history. It specifies the resource (user comments) and verb (obtain/retrieve), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_activity or get_user_posts, which might also retrieve user-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over get_user_activity (which might include comments) or get_comments_by_submission, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what type of information is returned (profile details, karma, account age, etc.), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted text, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how comprehensive the data is, or how this differs from other user-related tools. Given the server's complexity (16 sibling tools) and lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the tool's scope and behavior.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the single parameter 'username' is already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter, such as format requirements (case sensitivity, special characters) or validation rules. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.
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 action ('Get information') and target resource ('about a Reddit user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling user-related tools like 'get_user_activity', 'get_user_comments', or 'get_user_posts', which all retrieve user information but focus on specific aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple user-focused tools available ('get_user_activity', 'get_user_comments', 'get_user_posts'), there's no indication whether this tool provides comprehensive user data or basic profile information, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens if the user doesn't exist. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (post objects? metadata?), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (username, sort, limit) with descriptions, enum values, defaults, and requirements. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 'Obtenir l'historique des posts d'un utilisateur' clearly states the verb ('obtenir' - get) and resource ('historique des posts' - post history) with the target ('d'un utilisateur' - of a user). It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_comments (which gets comments) and get_user_info (which gets profile info), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_user_activity which might overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose get_user_posts over get_user_activity, get_user_comments, or search_posts, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Post a reply' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required authentication/permissions, rate limits, whether replies are editable/deletable, response format, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication requirements, response format, error handling, or behavioral constraints that would help an agent use this tool effectively. The combination of mutation nature and lack of structured metadata demands more descriptive context than provided.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., format of post_id, content constraints, purpose of subreddit validation). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 action ('Post a reply') and target resource ('to an existing Reddit post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create_post' or 'get_comment', which would require more specific language about reply functionality versus other post/comment operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_post' for new posts or 'get_comment' for reading comments. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose statement.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Rechercher' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what constitutes a 'post' in the return. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful search, what format results return, or how to interpret empty results. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output structure.
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 description mentions 'dans un subreddit' which aligns with the 'subreddit' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
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 action ('Rechercher') and target resource ('posts dans un subreddit'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_subreddits' or 'get_top_posts', which would require more specific scope definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_posts' or 'search_subreddits'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search functionality without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or structural complexity. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of subreddit objects with what fields), how results are ordered, or any limitations. For a search tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves too many unanswered questions.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('query' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Rechercher des subreddits par nom ou description' clearly states the action (search) and target resource (subreddits) with specific search criteria (by name or description). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_posts' or 'get_trending_subreddits' which also involve subreddit-related searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_posts', 'get_trending_subreddits', or 'get_subreddit_info'. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (e.g., how 'currently' is defined), or response format. This leaves gaps in understanding operational constraints.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Get') and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'trending' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral nuances, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could theoretically mention implicit context (e.g., time-based filtering), though not required. Baseline is high due to no parameters.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('currently trending subreddits'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_posts' or 'get_subreddit_info', which might also retrieve subreddit-related data but with different scopes or criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context such as real-time trends, popularity metrics, or how it differs from siblings like 'get_subreddit_info' or 'get_top_posts', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![reddit-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samy-clivolt/reddit-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samy-clivolt/reddit-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![reddit-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samy-clivolt/reddit-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samy-clivolt/reddit-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/samy-clivolt/reddit-mcp-server'

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