get_articleFetch a single article by slug and return its full Markdown content so you can read or process the complete post.
Get a single article by slug, including full markdown content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The article slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.1.3Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"URL slug of the article, e.g. 'how-we-cut-build-times'. Not the numeric id, and not the full URL."New value: +"The article slug"v5.1.0Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"The article slug"New value: +"URL slug of the article, e.g. 'how-we-cut-build-times'. Not the numeric id, and not the full URL."v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that full markdown content is returned, which is useful return-context, but it does not disclose access limits, error behavior for missing slugs, or whether draft articles are included.
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 states the action, identifier, and returned content immediately.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete and even notes the markdown content return. It is slightly under-specified because there is no output schema and it does not describe other returned fields or error behavior.
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%, and the schema already documents the single required parameter 'slug'. The description repeats 'by slug' but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single article by slug'), and it adds the returned content scope ('including full markdown content'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools such as list_my_articles and search_articles.
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?
The description implies usage—retrieve one article when you have its slug—and hints that full content is returned. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_articles or list_my_articles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.