get_postFetch a single fake blog post by ID (e.g., "1"). Returns post ID, user ID, title, and body text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID to retrieve (1–100). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post ID | |
| body | Yes | Post body text | |
| title | Yes | Post title | |
| user_id | Yes | ID of the user who created the post |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behaviors. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact return fields (post ID, user ID, title, body) and noting that the data is fake, which goes beyond the annotations.
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 action and includes all necessary information without any filler or redundant content.
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 simple 1-parameter, read-only tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does, what it returns, and that it operates on fake data, leaving no significant gaps.
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?
The input schema fully describes the 'id' parameter, including its type, range (1–100), and purpose. The description merely repeats 'by ID' and provides an example, adding no semantic value beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
Explicitly states 'Fetch a single fake blog post by ID,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_posts that likely fetch multiple posts. The verb 'fetch' and resource 'single post' are specific and 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 description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving exactly one post by ID, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_posts or any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve natural-language question answering. The JSONPlaceholder get_* tools are distinct but introduce an unrelated domain, making tool selection ambiguous in practice.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent style, but there's no uniform verb_noun pattern. Tools mix action-first names (get_posts, remember, resolve_entity) with noun-oriented names (entity_profile, deep_research, pipeworx_trending). The naming is readable but not highly predictable.
35 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The set includes a full suite of Pipeworx/Polymarket tools plus a separate JSONPlaceholder demo namespace, making the server feel bloated and unfocused. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could be consolidated.
The server's name and the get_posts/get_post/get_comments/get_users tools suggest a JSONPlaceholder fake API, but CRUD operations are missing: there's no create, update, or delete for posts, comments, or users, and no todos, albums, or photos. The unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools don't address this core domain gap.