zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

article_list

Retrieve a list of your own blog articles with IDs, slugs, titles, view counts, and dates. Use the IDs to update articles and slugs as public URLs.

Instructions

Список СВОИХ статей блога zaytsv (GET /api/articles/my): id, slug, title, viewCount, даты. id нужен для article_update, slug — публичный адрес /articles/{slug}. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "article_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and the HTTP method (GET), and clarifies that only the user's own articles are returned. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple read-only list, this is sufficient disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second explains the significance of id and slug, and the third notes the read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (id, slug, title, viewCount, dates) and provides cross-references to related tools. It clarifies the scope ('own articles') and the read-only behavior, making it complete for this straightforward list endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output fields rather than parameters, since there are none to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Список СВОИХ статей' (List of OWN articles), clearly specifying the action, resource, and scope. It also lists the fields returned and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by the 'own' scope, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for use: listing the user's own articles. It also states that the returned 'id' is needed for article_update, linking to a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with article_get for single-article retrieval, so it falls short of a full when-versus-alternatives explanation.

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