devto-mcp

Update a Dev.to article

devto_update_article

Edit an existing article by updating only the fields you provide, leaving other details unchanged.

Instructions

Edit an existing article you own. Only the fields you provide are changed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`series`	No
`published`	No
`bodyMarkdown`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you provide are changed') and ownership requirement ('you own'), but omits details about authentication, error handling, or response format. This is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the key operation and adds the important partial-update caveat without waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It lacks usage guidance, return-value expectations, error behavior, and any parameter details, leaving the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It only generically refers to 'fields you provide' without explaining any of the six parameters (id, tags, title, series, published, bodyMarkdown) or how they interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing article you own'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling create tool. It immediately conveys the operation and scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_article or other alternatives. The description does not mention that this should be used only for modifying existing articles, nor does it exclude scenarios like creating new articles.

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

Deploy Server