Skip to main content
Glama

네이버 블로그 내 글 조회

naver__blog__owner_post__read

연결한 내 네이버 블로그의 글을 조회합니다. log_no(글 번호)를 주면 그 글의 제목, 날짜, 본문을 돌려주고(mode=view), 주지 않으면 내 글 목록(제목, 글 번호, 날짜, 조회 수, 댓글 수 등)을 돌려줍니다(mode=list). 목록 조회일 때만 output_formats 에 xlsx 를 주어 글 목록을 엑셀 파일로도 받을 수 있습니다. 글 한 편의 본문 조회에는 파일이 없어 output_formats 를 주면 제출에서 거절됩니다. 목록 조회에는 count_per_page(한 페이지에 받을 글 수, 1~100)가 꼭 필요하고, current_page(1부터)와 category_no(카테고리 번호, 선택)로 범위를 정합니다. 본문은 스마트에디터 3 편집기로 쓴 글만 읽을 수 있고, 그 밖의 글은 읽지 못했다는 오류가 납니다. 대상 블로그는 연결한 내 블로그로 정해져 있어 다른 블로그는 읽을 수 없습니다. 조회만 하며 네이버 블로그의 글이나 설정은 바꾸지 않습니다. 네이버 계정을 먼저 연결해야 합니다. Files: a document generated from this result, as Excel (xlsx) only when requested in output_formats, listed in artifacts[] of the result with a download_url that works for 15 minutes; each file is kept for 7 days. If a link has expired, call xdata__job__result with the job_id from the result for fresh links. For an anonymous result, keep its private recovery_receipt and send it with the original job_id or pack_run_id to xdata__job__result. It grants access to that result only, until the original file retention expires. Do not publish it. Losing it cannot be repaired by signing up. The receipt also works if the client later signs in; it does not grant access to other results. Without a receipt, results require the original account and lane. For an authenticated call, generate and save request_idempotency_key before the first request. Reuse it with the same arguments only to recover that request after a lost response; use a new key for a new execution. Without it, calling again remains a new request. This optional key is not available to anonymous taste calls. Keep any provider-specific idempotency_key unchanged; it is a different field. 호출마다 토큰 1소진 요청 처리 시 XBOSS 작업을 생성하고 처리 결과를 저장합니다. 기관 원본의 조회 여부와 별개로 이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다. 기관 데이터 변경은 도구별 실행 내용과 기존 확인 절차를 따릅니다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "naver__blog__owner_post__read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
log_noNoPost number (logNo) to read. Give it to read that post's title, date and body; omit it to list your posts.
category_noNoOnly list posts in this category number. Optional; omit for all categories.
current_pageNoPage number of the post list, starting at 1 (default 1). Not used when log_no is given.
count_per_pageNoPosts per page, 1 to 100. Required to list posts; not used when log_no is given.
output_formatsNo선택 입력입니다. 결과를 엑셀(xlsx) 파일로도 받으려면 입력해 주세요. 파일은 결과의 artifacts[] 에 실립니다. 비워 두면 데이터만 받습니다.
account_link_idNo연동 ID(UUID v4). 선택 입력입니다. 비워 두면 서버가 API 키로 연동을 찾아 씁니다. 같은 서비스에 계정을 여러 개 연동했을 때만 직접 입력해 주세요.
request_idempotency_keyNoOptional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses a lot: per-mode return contents, the SmartEditor 3 restriction and its error, the xlsx rejection rule, a 15-minute download_url, 7-day file retention, and the recovery_receipt / idempotency_key protocol for recovering results. However, the description is internally inconsistent about side effects — it says it only reads and changes nothing on the blog, then states the call is not purely read-only because it creates an XBOSS job and stores results — and the appended '기관 원본' / institutional-data boilerplate is irrelevant to a blog tool and muddies the side-effect picture.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening is well front-loaded: purpose, then the two modes, then constraints, which is the right order. But a large tail of generic boilerplate (artifact recovery, request_idempotency_key policy, XBOSS job creation, '기관' institutional data handling) is shipped verbatim and partly duplicates schema parameter descriptions, so several sentences do not earn their place for this specific tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so — it enumerates the fields returned in each mode and explains how files appear in artifacts[]. Combined with prerequisites, error conditions, pagination parameters and file lifecycle, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents log_no, category_no, current_page, count_per_page and output_formats, and the description mostly restates those. It does add genuinely new semantics: count_per_page is required only in list mode, and output_formats=xlsx is valid only for listing and causes rejection for single-post body reads — a mode-dependent constraint the schema does not express.

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 names a specific verb and resource (read posts from the connected Naver blog) and immediately splits the behavior into two concrete modes: mode=view returning title/date/body for a given log_no, and mode=list returning title, post number, date, view count and comment count. An agent can tell exactly what it will get without opening the schema, and the read-only scope relative to the blog is stated.

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?

It states the selection rule explicitly: supply log_no to read one post, omit it to list. It also gives exclusions and prerequisites — output_formats=xlsx is only accepted for listing and is rejected for single-post reads, count_per_page is mandatory for listing, the target blog is fixed to the connected account, and the Naver account must be linked first. It even flags a content-level limit: only posts written in SmartEditor 3 can be read, others return an error.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources