get_postReturn the full markdown body and frontmatter of a post by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| frontmatter | Yes |
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, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It clarifies that the tool returns markdown body and frontmatter, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 with no wasted words. It quickly conveys the core functionality.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers the purpose and main parameter semantics, though it lacks usage guidance and error handling details. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic retrieval tool.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clearly indicates that the 'slug' parameter identifies the post, providing purpose beyond the schema's type string. However, it doesn't give format examples or constraints beyond minLength.
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 'Return' and names the resource 'post by slug', and specifies the content (markdown body and frontmatter). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts and search_posts, as well as other get_* tools for different content types.
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 when retrieving a single post by its slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusion criteria. No reference to sibling tools is made.
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 (about, now, post, project, pulse, reading, posts, projects, search results, contact, newsletter) and action (get, list, search, submit, subscribe). The two search tools explicitly differentiate by exact substring vs semantic vector search, removing any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for single item retrieval, list_* for collections, search_* for search, and submit_*/subscribe_* for actions. No mixed conventions or style deviations.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a portfolio site. It covers content access (posts, projects, reading), personal info (about, now), live stats, search, and user interactions (contact, newsletter) without being bloated or sparse.
The tool surface fully covers the public-facing domain of a portfolio site: all content types are retrievable in both list and detail forms, search is provided via two complementary methods, and transactional actions for contact and newsletter subscription are included. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the intended read-oriented purpose.