postsFetch a paginated list of fake blog posts from DummyJSON. Supports limit, skip, and field selection via select. Returns title, body, tags, reactions, and userId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| select | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of posts skipped | |
| limit | No | Limit of posts returned | |
| posts | No | List of posts | |
| total | No | Total post count |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / posts / items / properties / reactions / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "dislikes": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "likes": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+}Output schema / properties / posts / items / properties / reactions / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"object"Output schema / properties / posts / items / properties / viewsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "skip": 0
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "Limit of posts returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "posts": {
+ "description": "List of posts",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Post body content",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Post ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "reactions": {
+ "description": "Number of reactions",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tags": {
+ "description": "Post tags",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Post title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "userId": {
+ "description": "User ID of post author",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "skip": {
+ "description": "Number of posts skipped",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total post count",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the data source ('fake blog posts from DummyJSON') and specifies the exact return fields (title, body, tags, reactions, userId), which is valuable beyond 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 simplicity (paginated list fetch), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, parameters, return fields, and data source. With an output schema present, no further detail is required.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter: 'limit, skip, and field selection via select.' It also lists the return fields, giving agents a clear understanding of parameter effects.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('paginated list of fake blog posts from DummyJSON'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'post' (singular) and 'comments' by specifying the scope.
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 implies usage for fetching a list of posts with pagination and field selection. It doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for standard list retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.
Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.
43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.
For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.