get_post
ブログ記事1本の全文(markdown)を slug で取得する。slug は list_posts / search の結果に含まれる。
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 記事のslug |
ブログ記事1本の全文(markdown)を slug で取得する。slug は list_posts / search の結果に含まれる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 記事のslug |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns full text in markdown, but does not detail side effects, authorization, or exact response structure. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.
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, no fluff, front-loaded key information. Every word earns its place.
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 low complexity and absence of output schema, the description adequately specifies the return type (markdown). It could mention additional metadata but is sufficient for a simple 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context: the slug is obtained from list_posts/search results. This goes beyond merely restating the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool gets the full markdown of one blog post by slug, and explains where the slug comes from (list_posts/search results). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts.
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 when to use it: when you have a slug from list_posts/search. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion with siblings.
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 distinct purpose: get_post retrieves a single blog post, get_profile provides self-introduction, how_to_connect gives contact details, list_posts lists blog entries, list_works lists creations, and search cross-references all content. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores, e.g., get_post, list_posts, how_to_connect (a phrase but still verb-like). No mixed conventions.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a personal blog/portfolio MCP server. It covers all necessary operations without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tools cover the full lifecycle of interacting with Ogino's content: profile, contact, listing and reading blog posts, viewing works, and cross-searching. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.