Update a blog post by providing only the fields to change; tags replace the entire set. Use the numeric id to target the post.
Update a blog post. Only provided fields change; tags replace the full set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id | |
| body | No | HTML body | |
| date | No | dd-mm-yyyy | |
| tags | No | ||
| draft | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| subtitle | No | ||
| permalink | No | ||
| read_time | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: partial-update semantics ('only provided fields change') and array-replacement semantics ('tags replace the full set'). It still omits permission requirements, error behavior for an invalid id, and whether a field can be cleared, so coverage is partial rather than complete.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the partial-update rule is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing is repeated from the schema.
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?
A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage needs a richer description. Key gaps remain: how to clear a field when omitted fields are preserved, whether updates are idempotent, and any permission or validation-failure 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 coverage is only 33% (id, body, date documented; tags, draft, title, subtitle, permalink, read_time bare). The description rescues the important tags parameter by clarifying replacement-not-merge, but the remaining six undocumented parameters are left with neither schema nor prose semantics.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Update a blog post'. The resource noun distinguishes it loosely from update_page, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two siblings, so an agent must infer that posts and pages are different entities.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., fetch with get_post first), and no explicit routing away from update_page or toward create_post. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.