@isteam/hackernews-mcp

get_comments

Retrieve threaded comments for a Hacker News story, with configurable depth and limit.

Instructions

Get comments on a Hacker News story (threaded, depth-limited)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "story_id": "<story_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Max reply depth (max 5)
`limit`	No	Max top-level comments to fetch (max 30)
`story_id`	Yes	Hacker News story ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that comments are 'threaded' and 'depth-limited', which is beyond a simple 'get comments'. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like whether pagination or rate limits apply, or the response format, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every word 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 relatively simple read tool with full parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately cover selection and invocation. It could be more complete by mentioning the response shape or what happens with invalid story IDs, but given the tool's simplicity, it's close to fully sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., depth is max reply depth, limit is top-level comments). It doesn't compensate or enrich the parameter explanations.

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 clearly states the action ('Get comments') and the resource ('on a Hacker News story'), and adds specific qualifiers ('threaded, depth-limited'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_story (which retrieves the story itself) and the various story list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need comments for a specific story. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity provides clear context. No explicit when-not guidance is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server