Retrieve Product Hunt product details by slug or numeric ID. Get core product information in clean JSON for apps and workflows.
Retrieve Product Hunt product details. Returns the core Product Hunt product details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product Hunt slug or numeric ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieve' and 'Returns', omitting any details about data volume, response format, authentication needs, or rate limits. The term 'core product details' is vague and doesn't explain what is included or excluded.
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?
The description uses two sentences that are nearly identical, creating redundancy. It could be more concise: e.g., 'Retrieve core Product Hunt product details by slug or numeric ID.' Every sentence should add unique value.
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 and a large set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields are returned, how to interpret the data, or how this tool differs from similar ones like producthunt_about. A user would need external documentation.
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 100%, and the parameter 'id' is already described in the schema as 'Product Hunt slug or numeric ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('Product Hunt product details'). However, it doesn't differentiate what 'core product details' means, especially among siblings like producthunt_about or producthunt_alternatives. The redundancy in the two sentences slightly reduces clarity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., producthunt_about, producthunt_search, producthunt_reviews). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or specific contexts. The description is entirely generic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.