open_polyblogUse this when someone wants to open their PolyBlog library and browse blogs and articles in an interactive workspace. Starts with up to 25 blogs; the view supports pagination and reading articles. Not for creating or publishing content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| hasMore | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / logoUrlAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "maxLength": 2048,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / items / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "customDomain"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "customDomain",
+ "logoUrl"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a 25-blog initial load, pagination support, and in-view reading. It doesn't clarify state persistence or refresh behavior, but that is minor given annotation coverage.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the use trigger, followed by behavioral detail and an exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with 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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and with zero params the description carries the remaining burden. It covers purpose, scope, initial limit, and exclusions, though it could note whether the workspace requires prior authentication or persists across sessions.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to compensate for, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('open their PolyBlog library and browse blogs and articles in an interactive workspace'), making clear this launches a UI view rather than returning data like the many get_*/list_* siblings. It partially differentiates from siblings via the explicit exclusion clause, but doesn't contrast against the data-fetching tools by name.
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 gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('Use this when someone wants to open their PolyBlog library and browse') plus a when-not clause ('Not for creating or publishing content'). It stops short of naming the preferred alternative tools for programmatic listing or creation, so routing isn't fully unambiguous.
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.