hackernewsRetrieve the current hot trending list from Hacker News to discover top tech stories and discussions.
获取Hacker News热榜
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hackernews"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| noCache | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states a read operation but omits details like caching behavior (implied by 'noCache' parameter), rate limits, or output format. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.
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 is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 many similar sibling tools, the description fails to provide enough context. Missing details on return values, error handling, or how this tool differs from others like 'zhihu' or 'weibo'.
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 0% and the description provides no explanation of 'limit' or 'noCache' parameters. An agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description alone.
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 '获取Hacker News热榜' clearly indicates the tool retrieves Hacker News hot list. The verb '获取' and resource are specific, but it does not differentiate from many sibling tools with similar hot list functions.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for when Hacker News is appropriate or when to prefer other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.