get_postFetch a single CMSKite blog post with its full body by id or slug, optionally scoped to a project.
One post with its full body, by id or by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The post id, as `post_...`. | |
| slug | No | Its slug, if you do not have the id. | |
| projectId | No | Which project to act in, as `prj_...`. Defaults to CMSKITE_PROJECT_ID. Call list_projects if you do not know it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes the full body (not a summary), but says nothing about permission requirements or what happens when neither id nor slug is supplied.
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 eleven-word sentence with the outcome ('one post with its full body') front-loaded and the lookup keys trailing. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully signals that the full body is returned rather than a stub. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. The one gap is that zero parameters are marked required, yet the tool needs either id or slug; the description says 'by id or by slug' but never states that one of them is mandatory.
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 the id, slug, and projectId semantics (including the `post_...`/`prj_...` formats and the list_projects fallback) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by id or by slug' only restates the lookup key choice at a high level, adding nothing beyond the schema baseline.
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 ('Get a post') and adds scope: it returns 'one post with its full body,' which distinguishes it from list_posts and search_posts which return collections. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it sits just below the top band.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the single-record lookup versus the sibling list/search tools from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.