Markdown by mdedit.ai

Publish a Markdown Document

publish_article

Destructive

Publish or update a Markdown Document at a public mded.it link. Accepts natural workspace names and document titles; internal routing identifiers are optional. New links default to live. Later durable edits automatically update a live link at the same URL. Choose snapshot for a frozen artifact. Existing links keep their stored mode unless mode is supplied. Requires publishing:write and explicit user confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	Choose live for a link that follows later durable edits, or a frozen snapshot for a fixed artifact. Omit this only to preserve an existing link mode; new links default to live.
`articleId`	No	Internal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
`customSlug`	No
`seoMetadata`	No
`workspaceId`	No	Internal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace.
`articleTitle`	No	Human-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
`confirmPublic`	Yes	Must be true after the user confirms that anyone with the link may view the document.
`workspaceName`	No	Human-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`fullUrl`	Yes
`shortUrl`	Yes
`articleId`	Yes
`publishId`	Yes
`syncStatus`	Yes
`publishedAt`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes
`sourceVersionId`	No
`sourceContentHash`	No
`lastSuccessfulSyncAt`	No
`sourceArticleRevision`	No
`sourceContentRevision`	No
`sourcePackageRevision`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses non-obvious behaviors well beyond annotations: new links default to live, later durable edits update the same URL, snapshots are frozen, existing links preserve their mode unless mode is supplied, and publishing:write plus explicit user confirmation are required. This richly informs the agent about side effects.

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?

Five purposeful sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover routing, mode behavior, and permission/confirmation. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter tool with a nested object, the description covers purpose, routing, mode semantics, permissions, and confirmation; an output schema covers return values. The only gaps are customSlug and seoMetadata semantics, which are not explained in either the description or their schema entries, though they are individually inferable.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real value by clarifying natural-name routing ('internal routing identifiers are optional') and the live/snapshot default behavior for mode. customSlug and seoMetadata remain lightly covered, but the description compensates for the main decision-critical parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish or update a Markdown Document at a public mded.it link.' It further scopes behavior to live vs snapshot links, which clearly separates it from siblings like create_article/edit_article.

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 states the operation's context (publish/update at a public link) and gives mode-selection guidance ('Choose snapshot for a frozen artifact'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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

All Markdown by mdedit.ai 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes across article CRUD, review workflows, publishing, and conversion/export. Minor confusion can arise between convert_document and start_article_export (and their corresponding status checkers), but the descriptions explicitly differentiate arbitrary content conversion from exporting stored documents. The render_article tool's broad contextual wording overlaps conceptually with several actions, though its actual function (opening the reader) is unique.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 22 tool names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_articles, accept_suggestion, start_article_export, and unpublish_article. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or camelCase outliers, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server sits above the ideal 3-15 range and feels somewhat heavy for an MCP surface. The inclusion of record_article_app_event, a component-only telemetry tool with no agent-facing value, adds to this heaviness. However, the breadth of the domain—documents, collaboration, publishing, and conversion—largely justifies the count.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers article lifecycle, review threads, publishing, export/conversion, and presence well, covering most common workflows. A notable gap is the lack of any delete_article or trash operation, leaving no way to remove documents. Additionally, updates are limited to anchored edits via edit_article, with no direct full-content replacement option.

Resources

Need Help?