Retrieve a specific blog post from erikbethke.com by its ID or slug. Returns title, author, date, tags, summary, full content, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post ID (DynamoDB id) or slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields (title, author, date, tags, summary, full content, URL) and the domain, going beyond the annotation. It does not discuss edge cases like missing IDs, but given the read-only nature, this is sufficient.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, target, access method, and output fields without any filler 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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, read-only annotation) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing the return fields. It does not address error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple retrieval tool. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the post is not found.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (id) as 'The post ID (DynamoDB id) or slug', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds 'by its ID or slug' which reinforces but does not add new information, so 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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'a specific blog post', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_blog_posts or list_projects. It also specifies the access method (by ID or slug), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Clear context is provided by indicating this tool retrieves a specific post via ID or slug, implying it should be used when the identifier is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_blog_posts for discovery, so it falls short of an explicit guideline.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: single post retrieval, graph traversal, series navigation, site metadata, project listing, guestbook read/write, search, and quote verification. Even the related/series tools have explicit disambiguation in their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get, list, read, search, sign, verify. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a blog/knowledge-graph server. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full read lifecycle (search, retrieve one, related, series), site context, projects, guestbook (read and write), and even a provenance-check tool. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.