Misar.Blog MCP Server

Update an article

update_article

Idempotent

Change the title, body, or tags of an article or draft that already exists.

Only the fields you pass are touched; omitted fields keep their current values. Passing tags REPLACES the whole tag list rather than adding to it, so send the full set you want. Editing a published article changes what readers see immediately; it does not unpublish or re-date it.

Safe to repeat: the same call twice leaves the same result. Requires an API key, and the account must own the article. Errors if no updatable field is supplied. Returns the updated article.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Article or draft id from a listing tool. This is the id, not the slug.
`tags`	No	Replacement tag list, up to 10. Overwrites the existing tags entirely.
`title`	No	Replacement headline.
`body_markdown`	No	Replacement body as Markdown. Replaces the whole body, not a patch.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description details partial update behavior, full tag replacement, immediate publishing effect, idempotency statement, auth requirements, and error condition. It also notes what happens to omitted fields.

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 compact but information-denseched. Each sentence conveys a distinct and necessary fact: scope, partial update behavior, tag replacement, publication effect, auth/error, and return value. No redundancy or 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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, side effects, requirements, and expected result. With no output schema, the description explicitly mentions 'Returns the updated article' and error cases, making it complete. The annotations align with the description.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All 4 parameters are documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description further elaborates on semantics: `tags` REPLACES the list, `body` replaces the whole body, `title` is a simple changeeur. The schema also includes `additionalProperties: false`, ensuring no unknown params.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change the title, body, or tags of an article or draft that already exists.' It specifies the resource (article/draft) and the action (change), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_draft and publish_article by emphasizing existing content.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Only the fields you pass are touched; omitted fields keep their current values' clarifies partial updates; 'Passing `tags` REPLACES the whole tag list' warns about replacement semantics; 'Editing a published article changes what readers see immediately' informs about immediate effect; and 'Requires an API key... Errors if no updatable field is supplied' sets prerequisites and failure conditions.

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

All Misar.Blog MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools mostly map to clearly distinct resources and actions, with good behavioral separation between create_draft, publish_article, and update_article, and between the two title-generating tools. Some naming choices are still slightly misleading, such as get_series returning the full collection rather than a single series, and generate_cover_image references a non-existent upload_image tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clean lowercase verb_noun pattern, including create_*, get_*, list_*, and add_* names. Notable exceptions are upgrade, a bare verb that also mixes read and mutate behaviors, and get_series, which functions more like a list than a get.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is in the heavy range for an MCP server, exceeding the ideal 3-15 span. That said, the tools do span legitimate blogging concerns such as articles, reactions, series, newsletters, analytics, and AI assistance, so the count feels broad rather than padded.

Completeness2/5

The surface covers article creation, reading, updating, and publishing, but there is no delete or unpublish for articles/drafts, no way to remove an article from a series, and no update/delete for series. The dangling reference to upload_image in generate_cover_image also suggests a missing tool, and agents will hit dead ends trying to undo publication or remove content.

Resources

Need Help?