Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

producthunt_reviews

Retrieve Product Hunt product reviews by slug to view ratings, comment counts, creation time, launch source, and alternatives.

Instructions

Retrieve Product Hunt product detailed reviews. Lists the detailed reviews of a Product Hunt product, looked up by its slug in id. Each review has its ratings, such as ease of use and customization, comment count, creation time, the launch it came from and any alternative products named. The response also gives the review counts and an end_cursor.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProduct Hunt slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape well: review ratings (ease of use, customization), comment count, creation time, originating launch, named alternatives, plus review counts and an end_cursor (cursor pagination). It doesn't spell out read-only semantics or rate limits, but the behavioral context is above average.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter and return details. Every sentence contributes (purpose, lookup key, response fields), though the field enumeration is slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably covers return values (fields, counts, end_cursor). For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only pagination mechanics and safety semantics are left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Product Hunt slug'. The description repeats that id is the slug, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve/Lists detailed reviews of a Product Hunt product'), which is clearly distinct from a generic product lookup. However, it never names a sibling tool (e.g. producthunt_product) to explicitly differentiate, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the description says the product is 'looked up by its slug in id', which hints at when it applies. It offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to sibling Product Hunt tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools