Fetch an Indie Hackers member's profile by username or URL, including name, bio, products with revenue, and latest activity. Use it to research founders and their ventures in one call.
Get one Indie Hackers member by username or profile URL: name, bio, products with revenue and the latest activity. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | Username or Indie Hackers profile URL. e.g. uptownhr |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the flat 5-point cost per successful run and what the response contains, but says nothing about failure behavior, retries, or rate limits for an unauthenticated scraper-style endpoint.
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 retrieval and return contents come first, the cost note last. No filler, though the cost sentence could arguably be structured fields rather than prose.
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 only one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description's field list (name, bio, products with revenue, latest activity) covers what the agent needs. Minor gap: no mention of lookup failure or whether URL vs username changes behavior.
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 coverage is 100% and the single param is documented with an example ('uptownhr'). The description restates 'username or profile URL' but adds no syntax guidance beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('Get one Indie Hackers member') and enumerates the returned fields (bio, products with revenue, latest activity). The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the indiehackers search siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch a single member when you already have a username or profile URL. There is no explicit when-to-use vs the *_search siblings or any note about what to do when the identifier is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.