[duvera · risk:low] Search Hacker News stories by keyword, ranked by relevance. Returns title, URL, points, author, and comment count. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. "model context protocol" or "postgres performance". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses risk level ('risk:low'), that no account is needed, and the output fields. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or potential destructive actions, but given the 'search' nature, it's implicitly read-only. The risk label adds transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, source, ranking, output, and account requirement. 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?
For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output fields, risk, and account requirements. Minor missing details like pagination or result limits, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the 'query' parameter has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds that results are 'ranked by relevance' and lists output fields, but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 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 clearly states it searches Hacker News stories by keyword with relevance ranking, and lists returned fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like duvera__news_top_stories or hackernews__stories_top, which could cause confusion.
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 mentions 'No account required' and implies use for keyword search, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like duvera__news_top_stories (top stories) or hackernews__stories_top (general top stories). No when-not or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
