velog_diagnoseCompare the current Velog GraphQL schema against the baseline to diagnose unexpected tool failures and malformed responses, identifying root causes from unofficial API changes.
지금 벨로그 GraphQL 스키마가 이 서버가 만들어질 때의 기준선과 같은지 대조한다. 도구가 이유 없이 실패하거나 응답 모양이 이상할 때 원인을 가르는 1차 진단이다. 벨로그는 비공식 API 라 예고 없이 바뀐다. 읽기 전용이고 인증이 필요 없다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds that authentication is not required and that the underlying API is unofficial and volatile, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 primary action is front-loaded, and the supporting context is compact. The final sentence partly restates annotation-provided read-only/no-auth facts, but the description as a whole is efficient and not padded.
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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with strong annotations, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly: what it compares, when to use it, that it requires no auth, and why it may fail due to the unofficial API. No critical guidance is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on purpose rather than inputs.
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 states a specific verb and resource: comparing the current Velog GraphQL schema against the baseline schema from server creation. It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the sibling content/post tools by focusing on schema drift rather than data operations.
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?
It explicitly says this is the primary diagnosis tool when tools fail for no apparent reason or responses look malformed. It also explains that Velog is an unofficial API and can change without warning, giving an agent enough context to know when to run this check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.