Create a new post with a title, body, and user ID through a validated REST API bridge for AI assistants.
Create a new post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Post body content (1-5000 characters). | |
| title | Yes | Post title (1-200 characters). | |
| user_id | Yes | ID of the user creating the post. Must be >= 1. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond this: it does not mention that calls are non-idempotent (creating duplicates on retry), required authorship, or any side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes zero behavioral context.
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 with no wasted words and no filler. Its brevity is not a virtue here, though — there is nothing to front-load, and it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 three-parameter create operation, an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), and the schema fully documents inputs. Given that the structured fields carry most of the burden, the description is minimally adequate, but it still leaves when-to-use and retry/idempotency behavior unaddressed for what is an open-world, non-idempotent write.
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% — title, body, and user_id are each documented with lengths and minimums in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Create a new post'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name api_create_post with zero added detail — no scope, no mention of what a post requires, and no explicit differentiation from siblings like api_get_post or api_update_post. Clear but uninformative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling api_update_post, api_get_post, or api_list_posts, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned. The create-vs-read distinction is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.