Fetch Product Hunt products by topic slug or URL, returning names, taglines, ratings, review counts, launches, and categories for market research.
Products of a Product Hunt topic: name, tagline, rating, review count, launches and categories. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Topic slug or Product Hunt URL. e.g. artificial-intelligence | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 250) | |
| start_page | No | Starting 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 full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait not derivable from schema or annotations: the '1 point per returned record' cost model, which lets an agent reason about budget. It still omits read-only safety framing, pagination/ordering behavior, and any rate-limit or auth context.
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 compact sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. The return-field enumeration is slightly list-like but each item is information-bearing.
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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing returned fields (name, tagline, rating, review count, launches, categories) and the cost model. It still leaves the result envelope, ordering, and pagination semantics unstated for a tool whose parameters imply paging.
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% (topic slug/URL, max_items up to 250, start_page are all documented inline), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail about the parameters beyond what the schema already states.
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+resource: products belonging to a Product Hunt topic, and enumerates the returned fields. That distinguishes it from run_producthunt_categories and run_producthunt_categories_list, which are topic/category-level rather than product-level. It does not, however, name those siblings explicitly to remove all doubt.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over run_producthunt_products, run_producthunt_products_search, or run_producthunt_launches. The agent must infer 'topic in, products out' entirely from the name and schema, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.