Markdown by mdedit.ai

Save edits from the mdedit editor

save_article_content

DestructiveIdempotent

Component-only. Saves the full text buffer from the embedded mdedit editor as one minimal anchored edit. Content changes can update an existing live public link or enabled publication sync. Requires the content hash the editor last loaded; on a mismatch nothing is written and the latest content is returned so the editor can reconcile.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes
`context`	Yes	Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence. Do not include private document content, credentials, or personal information.
`articleId`	Yes
`commandId`	Yes	Globally unique UUID for this logical document edit. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried.
`workspaceId`	Yes
`baseContentHash`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`saved`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`conflict`	Yes
`unchanged`	No
`contentHash`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence. Do not include private document content, credentials, or personal information.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "workspaceId",
-  "articleId",
-  "commandId",
-  "baseContentHash",
-  "content"
-]New value: +[
+  "workspaceId",
+  "articleId",
+  "commandId",
+  "baseContentHash",
+  "content",
+  "context"
+]

AddedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the optimistic-concurrency contract (mismatched baseContentHash writes nothing and returns latest content for reconciliation) and the side effect on live public links and enabled publication sync. It does not mention required permissions or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences with the key scoping constraint ('Component-only') front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence on public-link/publication-sync side effects is relevant but is the one piece that could be tightened.

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 a destructive, idempotent write tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the failure mode, the concurrency contract, and the downstream side effects, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. Auth/permission requirements are the only meaningful omission.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% — commandId and context are documented, but content, articleId, workspaceId, and baseContentHash are bare. The description compensates for baseContentHash ('the content hash the editor last loaded'), which is the highest-risk parameter, but adds nothing for content, articleId, or workspaceId, so the coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 states a specific verb and resource (saves the full text buffer as one minimal anchored edit) and scopes it with 'Component-only', which tells the agent this is not the general-purpose edit path used by siblings like edit_article or create_article. An agent can distinguish it from the other write tools without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Component-only' implies the calling context (embedded mdedit editor) and thereby rules out most general use, and the description states the precondition (requires the last-loaded content hash). However, it never names an alternative tool for non-component edits and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?