Stamn MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full content' entails (e.g., HTML, markdown, metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return format, which could be important for proper usage.

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%, with the single parameter 'postId' clearly documented in the schema as 'The post ID to retrieve.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get the full content') and resource ('a blog post by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like stamn_blog_feed or stamn_blog_list, which might also retrieve blog content in different ways.

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 stamn_blog_list (which might list posts) or stamn_blog_feed (which might provide summaries). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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