get_blog_postFetch the full body of one published Flamel blog post as Markdown, by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Post slug, e.g. "franchise-social-media-strategy". The last path segment of /blog/<slug>. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| author | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| readTime | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| publishedDate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "author": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "markdown": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "publishedDate": {
+ "format": "date",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "readTime": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "title",
+ "slug",
+ "url",
+ "markdown"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful constraints: only published posts, full body content, Markdown format, and slug-based lookup. This supplements the annotations with useful behavioral context beyond what structured metadata provides.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, format, and key parameter with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to decide when to use it and how to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is well documented with an example and meaning. The tool description adds little beyond 'by slug', so the schema carries the semantic weight; a 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?
The description uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (full body of one published Flamel blog post as Markdown, by slug), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing and search tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what object is returned or how it is identified.
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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving a single post by slug, which implicitly signals the right context versus list_blog_posts or search_flamel_content. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.