Full-text search across all HN stories + comments (via Algolia). Filter by tags ('story', 'comment', 'show_hn', 'ask_hn'), min_points, and days_ago.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Comma-separated. Common: 'story', 'show_hn', 'ask_hn'. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| days_ago | No | ||
| min_points | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the search scope (full-text, stories+comments) and filters, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, latency, or whether it's read-only. Moderate 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?
Single sentence that front-loads the core action and resources. No wasted words; every part adds essential information.
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 5 parameters and no output schema/annotations, the description is fairly complete for basic usage but lacks details on result structure, pagination, and error handling. Adequate but has gaps.
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 low (20%). Description mentions tags with examples and lists min_points, days_ago as filters, adding some value beyond schema. However, it does not clarify query or limit parameters, nor provide details for min_points and days_ago.
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?
Description clearly states 'full-text search across all HN stories + comments', uses a specific verb (search) and resource (HN stories/comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific items, recent, top, or user info, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
Description implies usage for general search but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The mention of 'via Algolia' hints at external dependency, but no guidance on when not to use or comparison with siblings.
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 targets a distinct HN resource: item by ID, full-text search, recent Show HN posts, front-page stories, and user profiles. No functional overlap.
All tools follow a consistent hn_<descriptive> pattern (e.g., hn_item, hn_search), making their purposes clear.
5 tools is appropriate for a Hacker News server, covering essential read operations without excess or deficiency.
Covers item retrieval, search, trending, show-specific posts, and user info. Minor gap: no comment-specific tool, but core workflows are well-supported.