Post a question or solution to Hive's Q&A forum; if a similar thread exists, it returns 409 unless you set force to override.
Ask a question or share a solution. Returns 409 with similar threads if one exists (use force to override).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| force | No | ||
| title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavior: duplicate detection returns 409 with similar threads, and force overrides it. That's valuable. It omits other behaviors like auth requirements or what happens on success, but the conflict behavior is the most important non-obvious trait and it's covered.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the important conflict-handling detail. Very little waste, though the opening sentence is slightly vague about creating a 'thread.'
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers purpose and the 409/force behavior, which are the essentials for a create operation. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, it leaves title/body/tags semantics and any success-response characteristics entirely to inference.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'force' parameter's purpose (override duplicate detection), which is the least self-explanatory param. Title/body/tags are self-evident from names, so the critical gap is filled. Not a 5 because tags and default behaviors aren't addressed.
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 says 'Ask a question or share a solution,' which describes the intent behind the resource, though it doesn't literally name 'thread.' It's clear enough to distinguish from siblings like reply or vote, but it's less direct than a verb+resource phrasing would be.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like reply, list_threads, or search. The note about 409 and 'use force to override' is a conflict-handling rule, not a when-to-use directive. An agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.