Fetch ranked Hacker News stories to discover notable discussions and links. Adjust the item limit (1-50) to control how many results are returned.
Get the best stories from Hacker News
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items to fetch (1-50, default: 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of stories to fetch (1-50, default: 10)"New value: +"Number of items to fetch (1-50, default: 10)"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a read of stories; it says nothing about ordering semantics ('best' by what ranking?), result freshness, or pagination, which matters most given the hn_top sibling.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is part of why key distinctions are missing.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list tool this is minimally adequate, and the schema covers the input. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the unresolved 'best' vs 'top' ambiguity and lack of ordering information leave a meaningful gap.
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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (range, default), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Get the best stories from Hacker News'), but the sibling hn_top makes 'best' ambiguous — an agent cannot tell from the description how 'best' differs from 'top' or 'latest'. The purpose is understandable but not differentiated from its siblings.
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 guidance on when to choose this over hn_top, hn_latest, or hn_search. There is no statement of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving selection between four similarly-named story-fetching tools to guesswork.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.