HackerNews MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sorting ('sorted by date descending') which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other important traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. For a retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with pagination), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. It covers what's being retrieved and sorting, though could better address behavioral aspects like pagination implications.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (page and hitsPerPage). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('Show HN posts'), with additional context about what Show HN posts are ('projects shared with the HN community'). It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying the content type (Show HN vs Ask HN, front page, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all search-based siblings.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving Show HN posts sorted by date, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_stories' or 'get_latest_stories'. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.