PR-CY MCP

get_article

Получить статью по идентификатору вместе с содержимым.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article_id`	Yes	Идентификатор статьи
`include_block_data`	No	Включать ли содержимое (поле data) у блоков статьи. По умолчанию false — возвращаются только id, type, hash, updatedAt.Передайте true, чтобы получить полное содержимое блоков.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Идентификатор статьи
`body`	No	Массив блоков содержимого статьи
`name`	Yes	Название статьи
`extraData`	No	Дополнительные данные статьи
`hasInvites`	No	Есть ли у статьи приглашения к совместному редактированию
`dateCreated`	No	Дата создания статьи в формате ISO 8601
`dateUpdated`	No	Дата последнего обновления статьи в формате ISO 8601

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does little: it never says this is a read-only fetch that fails on an unknown id, nor what permissions or project scoping apply. Worse, 'вместе с содержимым' suggests full content is always returned, which conflicts with include_block_data defaulting to false (only id/type/hash/updatedAt).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the key information front-loaded. Not wasteful, though the brevity is partly the cause of the gaps elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, with no annotations and a genuinely two-mode tool (metadata only vs. full block data), the description leaves the behavioral profile and the sibling boundary under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the include_block_data parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond 'by identifier'. Baseline 3 applies; the description's vague 'с содержимым' actually muddies rather than clarifies the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Получить статью по идентификатору'), which clearly separates it from list_articles and from block-oriented siblings like get_article_blocks. The added 'вместе с содержимым' hints at scope but is not precise enough to differentiate the returned shape.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_articles, get_article_blocks, or read_artifact, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PR-CY MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?