get_itemsRetrieve multiple HackerNews items by their IDs in a single request, preserving the given order and skipping missing IDs.
Get many items in one call, preserving order and dropping missing ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_ids | Yes | The item ids to fetch, in order. | |
| strip_html | No | Return plain text instead of HTML in text and title. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses two important behavioral traits not captured by annotations: input order is preserved in the result, and missing ids are silently dropped. Since readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover safety and repeatability, these additional details meaningfully enrich the agent's understanding of call outcomes.
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?
A single sentence conveys the core action, resource, batch nature, order behavior, and missing-id handling with no filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter schema, complete parameter descriptions, clear annotations (read-only and idempotent), and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide when and how to call this tool. No critical behavioral gap remains.
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 schema already provides 100% documentation coverage for both parameters, including 'in order' for item_ids and a clear description for strip_html. The description's order/dropping language mostly restates or reframes schema-level information rather than adding new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('many items'), and the batching behavior ('in one call'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_item by emphasizing multi-item retrieval, and the order/dropping semantics add precision beyond the tool name.
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?
'Get many items in one call' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when multiple items are needed and a single call is preferred. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling get_item and the wording make the batch-vs-single distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.