search_blogSearch Brandize blog posts (logo design and branding guides) by keyword. Returns matching post titles, excerpts, and URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keyword(s) to match against post titles and content. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | Matching blog posts; empty when nothing matches. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Matching blog posts; empty when nothing matches.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "excerpt": {
+ "description": "Post excerpt, if any.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Post slug.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Post title.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Canonical post URL.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "title",
+ "excerpt",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the content domain and the shape of the result (titles, excerpts, URLs), which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, scope, action, and return value with no filler. Every element 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?
For a single-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, the description covers the domain, the action, and the result shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents the 'query' parameter's meaning. The description's mention of 'by keyword' is consistent but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Brandize blog posts'), and a scope ('logo design and branding guides'). It also states what is returned (titles, excerpts, URLs), making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the generation and retrieval siblings.
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 makes the use case clear: search blog content by keyword. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool is a blog search, so the appropriate context is effectively 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.