Fetch all Product Hunt launches submitted by a user, including votes, comments, ranks, and dates across every page.
Launches submitted by a Product Hunt user: votes, comments, ranks and dates, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fields returned (votes, comments, ranks, dates), that all pages are fetched, and the cost model ('1 point per returned record') – genuinely useful. However it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior for a scraping-style 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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the cost note. No filler, though the sentence is somewhat dense with the field list and billing clause.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by naming returned fields and the per-record cost. For a multi-page scrape with no annotations, though, it should say more about auth and pagination controls to let an agent call it correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents user, max_items and start_page. The description adds only the 'all pages' pagination hint, which loosely relates to start_page/max_items but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: launches submitted by a Product Hunt user, with the returned fields enumerated. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like run_producthunt_users_upvotes or run_producthunt_users_comments, but the resource naming makes the distinction inferable.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Given the dense set of run_producthunt_users_* siblings (upvotes, comments, collections, stacks), it should say which one to pick for what, but leaves this entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.