Retrieve every Product Hunt collection for a user, with collection sizes, first products, and pagination controls.
Collections of a Product Hunt user with their size and first products, all pages. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | Username or Product Hunt profile URL. e.g. kevin | |
| 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 bears full burden. It does disclose two genuine behavioral traits beyond the schema: pagination over all pages and the credit cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is valuable for tool selection. However it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the cost note. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded. Slightly terse rather than wasteful.
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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming what each collection entry contains ('size and first products'). Combined with the pagination and cost notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though permission/auth context is absent.
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% (each of user, max_items, start_page is documented with type and examples), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as pagination interaction between start_page, max_items, and 'all pages', so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.
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 resource scoped to a Product Hunt user ('Collections of a Product Hunt user') and adds what the records contain ('size and first products') plus scope ('all pages'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the global run_producthunt_collections by the user scoping, but never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls 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?
Usage is only implied through the 'of a Product Hunt user' entity scoping; there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. run_producthunt_collections for site-wide collections) to route the agent. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.