Search Indie Hackers Ideas by category to uncover companies, one-line concepts, categories, and MRR data for market research.
Browse the Indie Hackers Ideas database, optionally by category: company, one-line idea, categories and MRR. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category (Optional). e.g. SaaS | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 250) | |
| start_page | No | Starting page (50 ideas per page) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the credit cost ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuine operational context an agent would not otherwise know. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, result ordering, or rate limits.
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?
One compact sentence, but the colon-joined list ('...optionally by category: company, one-line idea, categories and MRR') is grammatically confused and forces the reader to disambiguate whether those are filter values or return fields. Front-loaded purpose is good; the tail is not.
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 0 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only barely sufficient. It covers the resource, the optional filter, and the credit cost, but leaves returned fields and pagination semantics (beyond the schema) unstated, which is thin for a browse tool in a crowded sibling set.
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 documents category, max_items (up to 250), and start_page (50 per page). The description only echoes the optional category filter and adds no format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Browse the Indie Hackers Ideas database') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like run_indiehackers_posts_search and run_indiehackers_products_search. However the trailing list 'company, one-line idea, categories and MRR' is grammatically ambiguous about whether it describes the category filter or the returned fields, muddying the purpose somewhat.
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?
'optionally by category' implies the filter is discretionary, which is the only usage hint given. There is no guidance on when to use this search variant versus the other Indie Hackers search tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.