HackerNews MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of returning 'full nested comment tree' and 'complete story details', which goes beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large comment trees.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and key feature, second clarifies return value scope. Perfectly front-loaded with all essential information in minimal space.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, simple single parameter with full schema coverage, and moderate complexity (retrieval with nested data), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and its distinctive comment tree feature. Minor gap: doesn't mention potential for empty/null returns if ID doesn't exist.

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 already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain ID format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's minimum:1). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('a specific story'), and key distinguishing feature ('with full nested comment tree'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like get_front_page (list) or search_stories (search) by focusing on single-story retrieval with complete comment hierarchy.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Retrieve a specific story by ID'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage when you need a complete story with comments rather than just metadata, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like get_user or search_comments.

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