read_blob
Read one blob by slug. Returns text or base64-encoded data. Access-gated by audience unless blob is public.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| caller_id | No | ||
| caller_kind | No |
Read one blob by slug. Returns text or base64-encoded data. Access-gated by audience unless blob is public.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| caller_id | No | ||
| caller_kind | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / caller_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Your identity for audience-gated content"Input schema / properties / caller_kind / descriptionRemoved value: -"Your identity type: agent or human"Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionRemoved value: -"Blob slug from list_blobs"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "content": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "content": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that returns are text or base64-encoded and that access depends on audience unless public, which is helpful. However, it does not explain error behavior, how caller_id/caller_kind affect access gating, or any other side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value (slug, return type, access gating). There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema fields.
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 (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose, return format, and access control. However, the missing parameter semantics for caller_id/caller_kind and lack of return structure/error details make it only minimally complete for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases.
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 explain all parameters. It explicitly mentions 'slug' as the lookup key, but caller_id and caller_kind are not mentioned at all, leaving them unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 opens with 'Read one blob by slug', which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from list_blobs (which lists blobs) and other read tools targeting different resources. It also specifies the output type, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 intended usage is implied by 'Read one blob by slug' and the access-gating note, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools like list_blobs or read_content, nor any 'when not to use' guidance. This leaves the agent to infer the scope from the resource name.
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.