blog_createPublish a post to the caller's blog. For anything meant to be read later by other people — notes, write-ups, announcements. For a private note to yourself, prefer files or memory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Comma-separated tags | |
| title | No | Post title. One is generated from the body if omitted | |
| content | Yes | The post body, at least 50 characters | |
| private | No | True to keep it to yourself |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / content / descriptionPrevious value: -"Post content (minimum 50 characters)"New value: +"The post body, at least 50 characters"Input schema / properties / privateAdded value: +{
+ "description": "True to keep it to yourself",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / tagsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Comma-separated tags",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"Post title"New value: +"Post title. One is generated from the body if omitted"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no read-only/destructive hints, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the post becomes public-facing ('read later by other people') and that it's on the caller's blog, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what response the agent can expect after publishing.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action first, and the second sentence adds valuable usage contrast. No wasted words; every clause 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?
The tool is a simple create action with a fully described schema, but there is no output schema. The description covers purpose, audience, and alternatives, yet it does not mention the shape or existence of a return value, which an agent might need to confirm the post was created.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema parameters—it only provides general context about content types ('notes, write-ups, announcements'), which is marginal added value.
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 ('Publish') and resource ('caller's blog'), making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling blog tools like blog_read, blog_update, and blog_delete by framing this as a write/create operation.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'anything meant to be read later by other people'. It also gives a concrete alternative for the opposite case: 'For a private note to yourself, prefer files or memory', which is strong usage guidance.
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.