get_postLee un artículo del blog en Markdown por su slug. Permite paginar artículos largos con offset y limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug del post, ej: 'el-poder-del-scl' | |
| limit | No | Caracteres máximos a devolver (por defecto 8000, máximo 20000) | |
| offset | No | Posición inicial en caracteres (por defecto 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Caracteres máximos a devolver (por defecto 8000, máximo 20000)",
+ "maximum": 20000,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Posición inicial en caracteres (por defecto 0)",
+ "maximum": 1000000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / slug / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / slug / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / slug / patternAdded value: +"^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only safety, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that output is Markdown and that offset/limit paginate long articles, which is genuinely useful. It does not cover not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first declares purpose, the second adds pagination behavior. The essential information is 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 a read-only tool with one required parameter and a fully described schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the return format and pagination behavior. The only real omission is routing guidance among siblings, already penalized under usage guidelines.
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 schema already fully documents slug, limit, and offset with defaults and ranges. The description's pagination phrase just restates what the schema conveys, adding no extra parameter semantics.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lee un artículo del blog en Markdown por su slug'. It names the identifier (slug), the output format (Markdown), and makes clear this targets one article, distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools even without naming them.
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?
There is no guidance about when to prefer get_post over get_latest_posts, get_category_posts, or search_posts. The pagination sentence describes a feature but not selection criteria or exclusions.
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.