Publish, schedule or unpublish a blog post. Money is integer minor units (cents). Calling this changes nothing: it returns a preview of what would change and a confirmation link. Only the merchant, on that page, can make it happen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | The post, by its address under the blog (from blog_posts) or its exact title. | |
| status | Yes | ||
| publishAt | No | ISO date and time with its offset, for published: a future one schedules the post. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the call is non-mutating in practice (returns a preview plus a confirmation link), and only the merchant on that page can enact the change. This is exactly the kind of two-step/confirmation semantics an agent needs. It sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false but is better read as clarifying the request-then-confirm flow than as a contradiction.
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 behavioral sentences are tight and front-loaded, but the sentence 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' is irrelevant to this tool and appears to be copy-paste noise, wasting space in an otherwise compact description.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses what is returned (a preview of changes and a confirmation link). For a mutation-adjacent tool this covers the essentials; only minor gaps remain around the exact preview content.
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 coverage is 67%: the schema already documents post and publishAt, and its own description maps published/draft to on/off-blog. The description's 'publish, schedule or unpublish' only loosely reinforces the status values and adds no new syntax or format detail.
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?
States a specific verb set (publish, schedule, unpublish) and resource (blog post), making the operation clearly distinct from blog_posts_create/edit/delete. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with blog_posts_edit, so it stops 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 usage via the confirmation flow ('returns a preview... only the merchant can make it happen'), which tells the agent what calling it does. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to alternative tools like blog_posts_edit.
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.
