portfolio_list_blog_postsArticles published on the mmatinca.eu blog (enterprise AI adoption, automation, lessons from practice), newest first: slug, title, excerpt, date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Content language (all content exists in both en and ro) | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds context about sort order (newest first) and returned fields, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details without redundancy.
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 absence of an output schema, the description explicitly lists return fields, provides content context, and is complete for a list tool with one optional parameter.
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 100% with one parameter lang fully described. The description does not add any information about the parameter, but the schema is sufficient, earning a baseline of 3.
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 it lists blog articles from a specific blog (mmatinca.eu), with context on content theme (enterprise AI adoption, automation, lessons from practice) and output fields (slug, title, excerpt, date). It distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio_get_blog_post and portfolio_list_projects.
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 (newest first) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling names provide some differentiation, but the description lacks direct guidance.
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 has a clear and distinct purpose: listing vs. getting details for blog posts and projects, retrieving the profile, and performing a cross-domain search. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent portfolio_<verb>_<noun> pattern (e.g., portfolio_get_blog_post, portfolio_list_projects), using standard verbs and plural/singular nouns appropriately.
With 6 tools covering portfolio, blog posts, projects, and search, the set is well-scoped for a personal portfolio site—neither too few nor excessive.
The tool surface provides complete read-only access to all major parts of the portfolio: profile, blog posts (list+detail), projects (list+detail), and a full-text search. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.