get_postsFetch all fake blog posts for testing and prototyping. Returns post ID, user ID, title, and body text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of posts to return (default 10, max 100). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of posts returned | |
| posts | Yes | Array of blog posts |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so description needn't repeat safety. It adds the return structure (post ID, user ID, title, body) and clarifies the data is fake, which is useful contextual behavior.
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 concise sentences that front-load the action and provide essential return info. No filler.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and context. The only gap is the minor tension between 'all' and the limit parameter, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
Input schema covers the single 'limit' parameter with full description (default/max), so the description does not need to elaborate. However, it adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, and the word 'all' could be slightly ambiguous given the limit parameter.
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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('all fake blog posts'), and the intended use case ('testing and prototyping'). It also distinguishes from sibling 'get_post' by emphasizing 'all'.
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 usage for testing/prototyping but does not explicitly address when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_post or get_comments. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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.