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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination handling (implied by page/hitsPerPage parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the search returns beyond 'comments'. The description is insufficient for a search tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key filtering options. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context that would be important for a search operation. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational guidance would be helpful.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filter by author or parent story' which relates to the 'tags' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 verb ('search') and resource ('Hacker News comments') with the specific scope of text content. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_story' or 'get_user' by focusing on comment search, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_stories' which searches stories rather than comments.

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 searching comments with text content and mentions optional filters, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_stories' or 'search_by_date'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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