get_articleFetch a single Polyblog article by id or by slug+locale. Returns allowlisted metadata and at most 8,000 characters of article content, with an explicit truncation flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Locale to disambiguate when looking up by slug | |
| idOrSlug | Yes | Article id or slug |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| article | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idOrSlug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Article id (uuid) or slug"New value: +"Article id or slug"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing output behavior: allowlisted metadata, an 8,000-character content cap, and an explicit truncation flag. It could more clearly state that truncation may occur but does not explain whether pagination or full content retrieval is possible.
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 tightly written sentences front-load the core action and then immediately disclose the notable output constraints (cap and truncation flag). Every component 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?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values, but it helpfully surfaces the 8,000-character cap and truncation flag that an agent should plan around. It falls slightly short of 5 because it omits any mention of authorization or error behavior when the article is not found.
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 100%: both parameters (idOrSlug and locale) are already documented. The description reinforces the id/slug dual-purpose semantics and the locale disambiguation role but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (fetch), resource (Polyblog article), and the two lookup modes (by id or by slug+locale). Cleary distinguishes from siblings like search_articles and list_article_translations by emphasizing single-article retrieval.
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 (single article fetch by id or slug) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as search_articles or show_article_preview. Usage is inferable from the sibling set but not directly stated.
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.