HackerNews MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sorting by date and use cases, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid parameters. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and its utility without unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and usage context adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying date sorting and general use cases, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples that aren't already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline 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 tool searches Hacker News content sorted by date, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (Hacker News content). It distinguishes from some siblings like get_user or get_story by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like search_comments or search_stories.

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 implied usage guidelines by stating it's 'useful for finding latest stories, comments, or posts by specific authors,' which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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