list_my_articlesRetrieve your Misar.Blog articles to review drafts, published, scheduled, or archived posts, with optional status and limit filters.
List your articles on Misar.Blog
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of articles to return | |
| status | No | Filter by status (omit for all published) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.1.3Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum articles to return, 1-100. Defaults to 20."New value: +"Number of articles to return"Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Return only articles in this state. Omit to return every state the account owns."New value: +"Filter by status (omit for all published)"v5.1.0Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of articles to return"New value: +"Maximum articles to return, 1-100. Defaults to 20."Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by status (omit for all published)"New value: +"Return only articles in this state. Omit to return every state the account owns."v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note about default result count, ordering, pagination, or what happens when status is omitted.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than optimally concise — there is no structure or detail to front-load because almost nothing is said.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, this is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of filtering, ordering, or result-shape context that would help an agent call it confidently.
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 both 'limit' (with default/max) and 'status' (with enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already structured, which is the baseline expectation.
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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('your articles') scoped to the user's own content on Misar.Blog. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_articles, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 instead of search_articles or get_article, nor any mention of pagination limits or default behavior. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.