blogger-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Publish a draft post' implies a mutation operation (changing post status from draft to published) but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers notifications, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 maximally concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Publish' specifies the action, 'draft post' specifies the target resource and its required state. There is zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after publishing (success/failure states), what the parameters mean, or any behavioral implications. The agent would need to guess about parameter semantics and post-publishing effects.

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 0%, meaning neither blogId nor postId parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about these parameters - not what they represent, where to find them, what format they should be in, or how they relate to each other. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Publish a draft post' clearly states the action (publish) and the resource (draft post), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like create_post, update_post, and delete_post by focusing specifically on transitioning a draft to published state. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from revert_post which might also involve post status changes.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a draft post must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for already published posts), or how it differs from similar tools like update_post which might also affect post status. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling relationships alone.

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