sh_blog_postRetrieve a blog post as plain text using its slug and get its category id to browse related products.
Read one blog post as plain text, with its category id for sh_browse (after sh_blog_search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Post slug from sh_blog_search, e.g. 'مدل-مانتو-شب'. | |
| max_chars | No | Cut text after this many characters; up to 20000 for long posts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / max_chars / defaultPrevious value: -6000New value: +4000Input schema / properties / max_chars / descriptionPrevious value: -"Cut the text after this many characters."New value: +"Cut text after this many characters; up to 20000 for long posts."Input schema / properties / max_chars / titleRemoved value: -"Max Chars"Input schema / properties / slug / titleRemoved value: -"Slug"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"sh_blog_postArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "sh_blog_postDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds modest value by noting the return is plain text and includes a category id, but says nothing about truncation behavior, pagination, or failure modes for a bad slug.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse in its phrasing ('with its category id for sh_browse'), but every clause carries information.
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 output schema, the description does the minimum job of indicating the return shape (plain text plus category id), and annotations cover safety. The only real gap is truncation/format detail, which the max_chars schema description largely covers.
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 both slug and max_chars are already documented in the schema with format, range, and default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Read one blog post') plus the output form ('as plain text') and an extra artifact ('its category id'), which clearly separates it from sh_blog_search and sh_browse. The parenthetical workflow note is slightly compressed but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 'after sh_blog_search' clause tells the agent this is a second-step tool fed by a search result, and naming sh_browse signals where the returned category id is consumed. It gives clear sequencing context but no explicit when-not-to-use or error/fallback guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.