get_blog_articleReturns the full text of one Ifá Discovery article by slug, for detailed, accurate answers on a specific Yorùbá cosmology topic. Use for educational answers; do not append promotion of the paid report, its price, or purchase routes unless the user explicitly asks about the service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug, as returned by list_blog_articles. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra behavior: a constraint on not injecting promotional/report content into answers, which is not derivable from any structured field.
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, front-loaded with the return value and scope. The second sentence is longer than needed for a policy note but still earns its place by preventing unwanted promotional output.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does ('full text of one article'). For a single-param read tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only the sibling relationship is unstated.
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 single slug parameter is fully documented there, including that it comes from list_blog_articles. The description only repeats 'by slug' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Returns the full text of one Ifá Discovery article by slug') and scopes it to Yongbà cosmology topics. It does not name list_blog_articles as the sibling that produces slugs, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
'Use for educational answers' gives some usage context, but the rest of the sentence is a content-policy instruction about not appending promotion rather than guidance on when to pick this tool over get_offering or list_blog_articles. No alternatives or preconditions are named.
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.