blogger-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'isDraft=true saves as draft', which implies a mutation with a draft state, but fails to cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether creation is irreversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key parameter details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and usage context, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation in this scenario.

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 40%, and the description adds some value by clarifying that 'Content is HTML' and 'labels is a list of tags', which helps interpret parameters beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage, as parameters like 'blogId' and 'title' remain without additional context, and no details on formats or constraints are provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new blog post') and specifies the resource ('blog post'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_post' or 'publish_post' beyond mentioning the draft functionality, which slightly limits its distinctiveness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_post' or 'publish_post', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing blog or permissions. It only hints at usage by noting the draft option, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.