Read one blog post by slug; the body is markdown. Start with read_blog to list posts. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The post slug from read_blog (e.g. 'you-are-born-in-a-box'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return format (body is markdown) and that no authentication is needed, though it says nothing about pagination or error behavior on a bad slug.
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?
Three short clauses separated by semicolons, front-loaded with the core action and lookup key. Every clause carries information: action, return format, workflow hint, and auth note.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers action, return format (markdown), the sibling workflow, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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% and the slug parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description only repeats 'by slug', adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 (Read) and resource (one blog post) plus the lookup key (slug). It distinguishes itself from the sibling read_blog, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
It routes the agent to read_blog as the entry point for discovering posts, which is the natural alternative, and notes that no account is required. It gives clear context but no explicit 'when-not' beyond that single deferral.
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.