Fetch Show HN stories from Hacker News. Specify the number of stories to retrieve, up to 50.
Get Show HN stories
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "show_stories"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of stories to fetch (max 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the core action without revealing ordering, pagination, default limits, or any side effects. Since it is a read operation, one might infer safety, but the lack of explicit behavioral detail leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single, concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on being a label rather than a structured description, which is why it does not receive a 5.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., a list of Show HN stories, order, or count). It does none of this. While the tool is simple, the description still feels incomplete because it leaves return value and default behavior unspecified.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit', including a description, default, min, and max. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get Show HN stories' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Show HN stories'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like top_stories, new_stories, and ask_stories. However, it is minimal and reads more like a title than a functional explanation, so it loses a point for not elaborating on what 'Show HN' entails.
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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used specifically for Show HN posts, nor does it contrast with sibling tools such as top_stories or search. Users must infer usage solely from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.