add_to_seriesAttach an existing article to a blog series at a chosen position; omit position to append it at the end.
Add an existing article to a series
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | No | Position in the series (optional, appends if omitted) | |
| series_slug | Yes | The series slug | |
| article_slug | Yes | The article slug to add |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.1.3Input schema / properties / article_slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Slug of the article to add, from list_my_articles. Not its title or id."New value: +"The article slug to add"Input schema / properties / position / descriptionPrevious value: -"1-based position within the series. Omit to append at the end. Inserting shifts later articles down."New value: +"Position in the series (optional, appends if omitted)"Input schema / properties / series_slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Slug of the target series, from get_series. Not its title or id."New value: +"The series slug"v5.1.0Input schema / properties / article_slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The article slug to add"New value: +"Slug of the article to add, from list_my_articles. Not its title or id."Input schema / properties / position / descriptionPrevious value: -"Position in the series (optional, appends if omitted)"New value: +"1-based position within the series. Omit to append at the end. Inserting shifts later articles down."Input schema / properties / series_slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The series slug"New value: +"Slug of the target series, from get_series. Not its title or id."v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no note that re-adding is a no-op (idempotency), no statement of what happens on conflict, no auth requirements. It is not contradictory, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.
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 filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of tight specification.
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 3-param mutation with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It omits failure modes (unknown series/article slug) and confirmation of idempotent re-add behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it 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 all three parameters (series_slug, article_slug, optional position) are already documented in the schema, including append-if-omitted semantics for position. The description adds no format or ordering detail, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource: add an existing article to a series. The word 'existing' usefully implies this does not create the article, distinguishing it loosely from create_draft/create_series. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements (create_series, get_series).
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. does the series have to exist? must the caller own the article?), and no mention of alternatives such as create_series. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.