Retrieve blog post summaries with optional filters for status, category, or result limit. Quickly browse content titles and metadata without loading full article content.
List blog posts with optional filters. Returns summary fields (not full PlateJS content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| category_slug | No | Filter by category slug (e.g. "case-study") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are summary fields and not full PlateJS content, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or how the default limit of 50 truncates results. Useful but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the one non-obvious fact an agent needs (summary fields, not full content). Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should more fully explain what is returned and how results are bounded. It covers the summary-vs-content distinction well but omits ordering, pagination, and the practical consequence of the limit cap, leaving the definition adequate rather than complete.
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 (limit, status, category_slug) are already documented in the schema, including the default and the category_slug example. The description adds only the generic phrase "optional filters" and no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ("List blog posts") plus scope ("with optional filters"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular get_blog_post and from list_blog_categories. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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 listing intent and the availability of filters imply the use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never points to get_blog_post for full content or to the create/update siblings. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.