Fetch the top-ranked Hacker News stories, with an optional limit from 1 to 50 (default 10), to quickly review current front-page items.
Get the top-ranked 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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the implied read-only nature of 'Get'. It does not say whether results are live-fetched from the HN API, cached, paginated, or what the return structure looks like for a tool with no output schema.
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 no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is stated immediately.
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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource but not what 'top-ranked' means (score? front page?) or what a returned item contains. Enough to attempt a call, not enough to predict the result.
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% for the single 'limit' parameter, including range and default, so the description need not restate it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.
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 and resource ('Get the top-ranked stories from Hacker News'), which is more informative than the bare name hn_top. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like hn_best and hn_latest, leaving 'top-ranked' nearly synonymous with 'best' and forcing the agent to guess which ranking endpoint to use.
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 choose this tool over hn_best, hn_latest, or hn_search, and no stated prerequisites or context. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.