Inserts article body content into the current editor, supporting plain, markdown, or HTML formats and optional body images.
Fill article body in the current editor. Supports optional body images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Body format | |
| content | Yes | Article body content | |
| bodyImages | No | Optional body images (URL/local path/data URL) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It is silent on whether filling replaces or appends existing body content, what the default format is, and what permissions or editor state are required. The only behavioral note, optional body images, duplicates the schema.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the core action leads. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the unaddressed behavioral questions.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves key gaps: replace-vs-append semantics, the format default, and the editor-state prerequisite. The schema covers parameters, but behavioral context is thin.
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 parameters (format enum, content, bodyImages) are fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, mentioning body images only to repeat what the property already says.
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 (fill article body) with a scope qualifier (in the current editor), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling fill_article_title. It is a clean purpose statement, though it never contrasts itself with open_article_editor or create_article.
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?
"In the current editor" implies the tool must follow open_article_editor, but this prerequisite is never stated explicitly and no when-not or alternative is named. Usage is implied rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.