list_blog_articlesPublished HiBot articles on AI visibility and the ANSWER framework, newest first, optionally filtered to one ANSWER category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Articles to return. Default 20. | |
| offset | No | Articles to skip for paging. Default 0. | |
| category | No | Optional ANSWER category slug: general, appearance, nomination, showdown, worth, expertise, or reputation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 usefully reveals that only published articles are returned, results are newest-first, and filtering is optional. However, it does not describe output shape, pagination behavior, or any access constraints.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence conveys the resource, scope, ordering, and optional filtering with no wasted words. The key behavioral details are front-loaded.
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 an unannotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and selection criteria but omits guidance on choosing among sibling listing/search tools and does not describe the returned article fields. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully self-sufficient.
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 three parameters. The description adds only the notion that the category filter is applied to one ANSWER category, which is already implied by the schema. No meaningful extra parameter semantics are provided.
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 'list', the resource 'published HiBot articles', the topic scope, the sort order, and the optional category filter. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_blog or get_blog_article, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 a browsing/listing use case and introduces the optional category filter, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_blog or get_blog_article. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.
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 and action: methodology explanation, article retrieval by slug, case study summary, plan details, and list/search operations. The three blog-related tools (get/list/search) have clearly different semantics — slug lookup, listing/filtering, and keyword search — so an agent can reliably select the right one.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention: get_*, list_*, search_*. Verbs are uniform and nouns match the resource type (article, case_study, plans, blog, methodology). No camelCase or inconsistent verb styles are present.
Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for an informational server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct read-only capability (retrieval, listing, searching) for the three content areas (blog, case studies, plans/methodology).
The server covers the full read-only surface implied by its domain: methodology explanation, plan details, article list/search/retrieve, and case study list/retrieve. No critical operation is missing for an agent trying to answer questions about HiBot's content and offerings.