unofficial-HackerNews-MCP-CLI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those hints: replies are nested and bounded by max_depth and max_per_level, and comment text defaults to HTML unless strip_html is set. This clarifies output-shaping behavior that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second delivers the key behavioral details. There is no filler, repetition of schema data, or redundant phrasing; every clause earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameter details, the description needs only to convey the core purpose and non-obvious behavior. It covers the threaded nature, bounding limits, and HTML default, leaving an agent well-equipped to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3, and the description adds value by explaining the effect of max_depth, max_per_level, and strip_html on the returned comment tree and text format. Offset and item_id semantics remain in the schema, but the description meaningfully connects parameters to behavior.

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 ('Get') and resource ('threaded comment tree for an item'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve items, stories, users, or updates. The qualifier 'threaded' adds precision beyond the name alone, so an agent can tell this tool apart from get_item for comment-related needs.

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 intended use case is implied: call this tool when you want comments for an item rather than items or stories. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer get_comments over get_item, whether get_item already returns some comment data, or any exclusions. The guidance is adequate but inferred from the name and resource scope.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a specific behavioral detail—returns null if no item exists—which is not in the annotations and is valuable for an agent deciding how to handle missing data.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key behavioral note. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters, an output schema exists (so return structure is covered), and the description covers purpose and null behavior. Given the low complexity and rich annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both parameters (item_id and strip_html) already described in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a single HackerNews item'), and explicitly enumerates the item types (story, comment, job, poll, or poll option), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stories or get_comments. It also notes the null return for nonexistent ids, adding precision.

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 implies single-item usage via the word 'single', which distinguishes it from get_items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits not captured by annotations: input order is preserved in the result, and missing ids are silently dropped. Since readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover safety and repeatability, these additional details meaningfully enrich the agent's understanding of call outcomes.

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 sentence conveys the core action, resource, batch nature, order behavior, and missing-id handling with no filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter schema, complete parameter descriptions, clear annotations (read-only and idempotent), and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide when and how to call this tool. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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 already provides 100% documentation coverage for both parameters, including 'in order' for item_ids and a clear description for strip_html. The description's order/dropping language mostly restates or reframes schema-level information rather than adding new parameter-specific meaning, 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('many items'), and the batching behavior ('in one call'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_item by emphasizing multi-item retrieval, and the order/dropping semantics add precision beyond the tool name.

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?

'Get many items in one call' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when multiple items are needed and a single call is preferred. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling get_item and the wording make the batch-vs-single distinction obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows the operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds the behavioral trait of returning the maximum id, which aligns with the annotations. It does not contradict them. It does not add extra detail like rate limits or aggregate nature, but the annotations cover the key safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief use case. Every word serves a function; there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose and suggests a use case, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. The only minor gap is not mentioning alternatives, but given the simplicity, it is complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The description adds value by clarifying that the result is the latest item id, which is more than the schema provides (schema is empty). With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified, as the description effectively communicates the tool's interface.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting the id of the most recently created item, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by mentioning its usefulness for walking all items, which hints at its role relative to siblings like get_items, though it does not explicitly compare to them. With no parameters and a clear output, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 says 'useful for walking all items,' which indicates a clear use case: iterating over items in creation order. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., get_updates for incremental updates), but the context implies it is for initial or full traversal. The clear context earns above average, but the lack of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as per-category upper bounds (500 vs 200 stories) and the specific fields returned in each result.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by two sentences of helpful specifics. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool given the rich annotations and full schema coverage. It explains category-specific limits, what fields appear in results, and the general scope, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions already provided for limit, offset, category, and strip_html. The description does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it mentions categories and result details but not new guidance on how parameters should be used.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get a list of HackerNews stories') and immediately clarifies it returns full details per story. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_item, get_comments, and get_user by focusing on category-based story lists.

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 makes usage context clear: it is for retrieving stories by category, and it names the supported categories. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this over get_items or get_item, so guidance on alternatives is only implied by the sibling tool names.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the temporal scope ('most recently changed') but provides no additional behavior such as ordering, limits, or whether the result is a combined list. There is no contradiction with annotations, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The description is mostly sufficient, but it does not clarify the recency window or any caveats about what 'most recently' means, leaving a small but real 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond noting this is a parameterless request.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it retrieves items and user profiles that changed most recently. This distinguishes it partially from sibling get_* tools, but it does not explicitly disambiguate from get_items or get_user, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no comparison to alternatives like get_items or get_item. The phrase 'changed most recently' implies a polling/recent-changes use case, but the description leaves the selection entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing the null-return behavior for users with no public activity or nonexistent users, and by clarifying that only the public profile is returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences with no redundant or filler content. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the important null behavior is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It communicates purpose, core fields, and null behavior. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, which is partially mitigated by the distinct resource focus.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds context about what fields the tool returns, but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 a HackerNews user's public profile,' and lists the included fields (karma, about, created, submissions). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling item/story/comment tools, which focus on different HackerNews resources.

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 implies usage by naming the target resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The null-return behavior provides some guidance for handling nonexistent users, but alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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