Skip to main content
Glama
Riddhimaan-Senapati

unofficial-HackerNews-MCP-CLI

Get user

get_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a HackerNews user's public profile: karma, about, created, submissions. Returns null for missing or inactive users.

Instructions

Get a HackerNews user's public profile (karma, about, created, submissions).

Returns null if the user has no public activity or does not exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesThe exact, case-sensitive HackerNews username.
strip_htmlNoReturn plain text instead of HTML in `about`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / strip_html
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": false,
      +  "description": "Return plain text instead of HTML in `about`.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
      -  {
      -    "additionalProperties": true,
      -    "type": "object"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]New value: +[
      +  {
      +    "additionalProperties": true,
      +    "description": "A HackerNews user profile. Only users with public activity are available.",
      +    "properties": {
      +      "about": {
      +        "anyOf": [
      +          {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          {
      +            "type": "null"
      +          }
      +        ],
      +        "default": null,
      +        "description": "The user's optional self-description (HTML)."
      +      },
      +      "created": {
      +        "anyOf": [
      +          {
      +            "type": "integer"
      +          },
      +          {
      +            "type": "null"
      +          }
      +        ],
      +        "default": null,
      +        "description": "Creation date of the user, in Unix time."
      +      },
      +      "hn_url": {
      +        "anyOf": [
      +          {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          {
      +            "type": "null"
      +          }
      +        ],
      +        "description": "Canonical HackerNews profile link.",
      +        "readOnly": true
      +      },
      +      "id": {
      +        "description": "The user's unique username. Case-sensitive.",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "karma": {
      +        "anyOf": [
      +          {
      +            "type": "integer"
      +          },
      +          {
      +            "type": "null"
      +          }
      +        ],
      +        "default": null,
      +        "description": "The user's karma."
      +      },
      +      "submitted": {
      +        "anyOf": [
      +          {
      +            "items": {
      +              "type": "integer"
      +            },
      +            "type": "array"
      +          },
      +          {
      +            "type": "null"
      +          }
      +        ],
      +        "default": null,
      +        "description": "List of the user's stories, polls and comments."
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "id",
      +      "hn_url"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "type": "null"
      +  }
      +]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing the null-return behavior for users with no public activity or nonexistent users, and by clarifying that only the public profile is returned. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no redundant or filler content. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the important null behavior is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It communicates purpose, core fields, and null behavior. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, which is partially mitigated by the distinct resource focus.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds context about what fields the tool returns, but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a HackerNews user's public profile,' and lists the included fields (karma, about, created, submissions). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling item/story/comment tools, which focus on different HackerNews resources.

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?

The description implies usage by naming the target resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The null-return behavior provides some guidance for handling nonexistent users, but alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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