Fetch a Product Hunt user profile by username or URL, including name, headline, followers, launches, products, collections, reviews, links, and join date.
Get one Product Hunt user by username or URL: name, headline, about, followers, submitted launches, products, collections, reviews, links and join date. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | Username or Product Hunt profile URL. e.g. kevin |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the flat cost ('5 points per successful run') and lists what comes back, implying a read-only profile fetch, but it says nothing about error behavior for a missing user, auth requirements, or whether the response is paginated.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields, with the cost note appended. The field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema; there is no filler.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the input contract, the returned field set, and the cost, which is close to everything needed. Missing only guidance on failure modes and usage context relative to sibling tools.
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% for the single 'user' parameter, already documenting that it accepts a username or Product Hunt profile URL with an example. The description repeats this acceptance without adding format or normalization 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 and resource ('Get one Product Hunt user by username or URL') and enumerates the returned profile fields, so the agent can tell it is the single-profile lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling sub-resource tools (run_producthunt_users_launches, _comments, _stacks, _upvotes), so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. Usage is only implied by 'Get one ... user', which an agent must interpret against the many related Product Hunt user sub-resource tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.