get_hottestGet trending stories from Lobsters. Returns title, URL, score, comment count, and tags for each story.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of stories returned | |
| stories | No | List of trending stories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / description / typePrevious value: -[
- "string",
- "null"
-]New value: +"string"Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / downvotesRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of downvotes",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / submitterRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Username of story submitter",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / stories / items / properties / upvotesRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Number of upvotes",
- "type": "number"
-}Output schema / properties / stories / items / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "short_id",
- "url",
- "comments_url",
- "title",
- "score",
- "upvotes",
- "downvotes",
- "comment_count",
- "created_at",
- "submitter",
- "tags",
- "description"
-]Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "count",
- "stories"
-]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of stories returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stories": {
+ "description": "List of trending stories",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "comment_count": {
+ "description": "Number of comments",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "comments_url": {
+ "description": "URL to view comments on Lobsters",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO timestamp of story creation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Plain text description or null",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "downvotes": {
+ "description": "Number of downvotes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "description": "Total score (upvotes - downvotes)",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "short_id": {
+ "description": "Unique short ID for the story",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "submitter": {
+ "description": "Username of story submitter",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tags": {
+ "description": "Tags associated with the story",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Story title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "upvotes": {
+ "description": "Number of upvotes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Story URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "short_id",
+ "url",
+ "comments_url",
+ "title",
+ "score",
+ "upvotes",
+ "downvotes",
+ "comment_count",
+ "created_at",
+ "submitter",
+ "tags",
+ "description"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "stories"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds value by specifying the return fields and data source, but does not mention any additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, authentication).
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?
Two sentences, no extraneous information. The primary action and return fields are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the tool has no parameters, a simple return, and an output schema (per context signals), the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: source and return fields. Could mention ordering or limits, but not necessary given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trending stories from Lobsters'), and lists the returned fields (title, URL, score, comment count, tags). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_newest (newest vs trending) and get_story (single story vs list).
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 implies use for trending content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_newest or get_story. No exclusion criteria or context is 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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and six tools for Polymarket prediction markets. The boundaries between them are unclear, causing potential for misselection.
Tool names are all snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (get_hottest, get_newest), some are single verbs (remember, forget), and others are noun_noun (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage). While readable, the lack of a consistent pattern adds confusion.
With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Lobsters' suggests a focus on that site, yet only 4 tools are Lobsters-related. The majority belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and generic utilities, making the scope extremely broad and unfocused.
For the implied domain of Lobsters, the tool set is incomplete (missing create/update/delete). For the broader domains (Pipeworx, Polymarket), the set is extensive but doesn't align with the server's name. The lack of a coherent domain leaves obvious gaps relative to any single purpose.