Hot discussions merged from Hacker News, Lobsters and Lemmy: title, link, discussion URL, score, comments, heat.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hot_discussions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| source | No | all, hn, lobsters or lemmy | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are merged across three named sources and enumerates the result fields, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, time window, freshness, pagination, or failure behavior.
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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and source list before the returned fields. It reads as a fragment rather than a structured statement, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the field enumeration does useful work in telling the agent what comes back. However, for a ranked aggregation tool the undefined 'heat'/recency notion and the undocumented limit parameter leave real gaps an agent would need to guess at.
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 50%: the source parameter is documented in the schema, while limit is not described anywhere. Naming the three sources (HN, Lobsters, Lemmy) indirectly maps to the source values, but the description adds nothing about limit bounds (1-100, default 30) or default behavior.
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?
Names the concrete resource (hot discussions aggregated from Hacker News, Lobsters and Lemmy) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. The verb is only implicit (a read/list), and it does not differentiate itself from any sibling, keeping it short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as the social_* or news_* tools. It also never defines what 'hot' means (time window, ranking), so the agent cannot judge whether this fits a 'what's trending now' request.
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.