run_indiehackers_posts_commentsList the comments of one Indie Hackers post (threaded: depth and parent id): text, author, upvotes and date. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | Post slug or Indie Hackers URL. e.g. 3-products-0-revenue-i-think-i-finally-understand-the-problem-6509e1a76a | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 250) Default: 25. | |
| start_page | No | Starting page (50 comments per page) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions '1 point per returned record,' which signals a cost/pagination model and is valuable. It also notes 'threaded: depth and parent id,' revealing that comments are hierarchical. However, it omits permission requirements, rate limits, and whether results are paginated or sorted by date. Partial coverage.
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 packs purpose, structure, returned fields, and cost model. No wasted words, and the most important information (verb + resource) comes first.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (text, author, upvotes, date) which helps the agent understand the response shape. With three parameters and no annotations, it covers the essentials but could be more explicit about pagination behavior and limitations such as the 50-comments-per-page boundary.
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 description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for post, max_items, and start_page. The description adds format details (e.g., 'List the comments of one Indie Hackers post') but does not elaborate on how max_items and start_page interact or the default page size. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter burden.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (comments of one Indie Hackers post), and clarifies the threaded structure with depth and parent id. An agent can immediately distinguish this from run_indiehackers_posts or run_indiehackers_posts_search.
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?
Implicitly scoped to retrieving comments for a given post, which is clear from the required 'post' parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_indiehackers_posts_search or how to obtain a post slug. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are 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.