SiteCheck Web Intel

Hacker News story search through the official HN Search

search_hacker_news

Read-only

Hacker News story search through the official HN Search API (Algolia, public, no key): title, article URL, author, points, comment count and discussion link. Returns stories only, most relevant first. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_hacker_news"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Search words (1 to 200 characters)
`limit`	No	How many stories, 1 to 30 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`nbHits`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations only covering readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavior the agent would otherwise not know: result ordering, stories-only filtering, and a full billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls uncharged). The failure-not-charged and payment-rail details are exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the API identity, returned fields and pricing each earn their place. Mild redundancy in enumerating returned fields when an output schema already exists, and the payment-network enumeration is dense for the space it takes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers source, scope, ordering and cost adequately. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against search_hackernews_items, which matters given how many search_* tools share this namespace.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (q, limit) are already fully documented with ranges and defaults, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or interplay (e.g. how limit interacts with relevance ordering), so it neither helps nor harms beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Hacker News story search") plus the underlying data source (official HN Search API / Algolia), and adds scope ("Returns stories only, most relevant first"). It stops short of differentiating from the near-identical sibling search_hackernews_items, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: "public, no key" and the per-call price tell the agent this is a paid, credential-free lookup, but there are no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use rules and no routing to the obvious alternative (search_hackernews_items).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?