Fetch top-level Hacker News comments for a story by ID or index from the last story list; set a limit from 1 to 50 items.
Get top-level comments for a story (by story ID or index from the last story list)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items to fetch (1-50, default: 20) | |
| story_id | No | The ID of the story to get comments for | |
| story_index | No | The index (1-based) of the story from the last fetched list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 20,
+ "description": "Number of items to fetch (1-50, default: 20)",
+ "maximum": 50,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "number"
+}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 burden. 'Top-level comments' is a useful behavioral nuance (excludes nested replies), but the description omits return format, pagination, whether the call is safe/read-only, and any rate or auth context for a tool that hits an external API.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and input modes in a parenthetical. Efficient, though the parenthetical is dense and slightly compressed.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape and the mutual exclusivity of story_id vs story_index for a 0-required-param tool. It covers purpose adequately but leaves these gaps.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description names story ID and index as inputs but does not clarify that these are alternative selectors or which takes precedence when both are omitted (0 required params).
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 specific verb (Get) and resource (top-level comments for a story), which differentiates it from siblings like hn_story and hn_latest. The parenthetical clarifies input modes but the description doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?
The parenthetical implies usage context ('index from the last story list'), suggesting it's meant to be called after a list tool, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated. Usage is inferred rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.