blog_readRead one blog post in full, by id or by title. Use after blog_list has found a candidate and the summary is not enough
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The post's id, as given by blog_list | |
| title | No | The post's title, or enough of it to be unambiguous — use this when you have a name rather than an id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The blog post ID"New value: +"The post's id, as given by blog_list"Input schema / properties / titleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The post's title, or enough of it to be unambiguous — use this when you have a name rather than an id",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "id"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds that the tool returns the full post content (not just a summary), which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention error handling or precedence when both id and title are provided, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a terse second clause for usage guidance. Every word earns its place—no fluff, clear verb-first structure.
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 tool with two well-documented parameters and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the workflow (after blog_list), the selection method (id or title), and the output nature (full post). It leaves no critical gap for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (id and title) fully described. The description only echoes 'by id or by title', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'one blog post' with scope 'in full', and specifies lookup by id or title. It distinguishes from siblings like blog_list (which gives summaries) and blog_update/delete by focusing on full-content 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?
Explicitly says 'Use after blog_list has found a candidate and the summary is not enough', defining when to use the tool and implicitly when not to (if summary suffices). It names the alternative workflow, making the decision criterion clear.
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.