Dev.to Blog Publisher MCP Server

publish_blog_to_devto

Publishes a markdown blog post to Dev.to as a draft or live article, with optional tags, series, canonical URL, and cover image. Returns the article URL on success.

Instructions

Publishes a blog post to dev.to.

Args:
    title (str): The title of the blog post.
    body_markdown (str): The content of the blog post in Markdown format.
    tags (Optional[List[str]]): A list of tags for the blog post (e.g., ["python", "webdev"]).
    published (bool): Set to True to publish immediately, False to save as a draft.
    series (Optional[str]): The name of the series this article belongs to.
    canonical_url (Optional[str]): The canonical URL of the article if it's cross-posted.
    cover_image (Optional[str]): URL of the cover image for the article.

Returns:
    str: A message indicating the success or failure of the publishing operation,
         including the article URL if successful.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "body_markdown": "<body_markdown>"
    },
    "name": "publish_blog_to_devto"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`series`	No
`published`	No
`cover_image`	No
`body_markdown`	Yes
`canonical_url`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the effect of the 'published' parameter and the return value, but it does not mention authentication, potential side effects, idempotency, or failure handling. It provides some transparency but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by a detailed Args section and a Returns note. It is efficient, with no wasted words, and each parameter explanation earns its place given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description covers all inputs and the return type, which is sufficient for a straightforward publishing action. However, it omits context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication credentials, rate limits) and specific failure modes. Given the tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for its parameters, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter (title, body_markdown, tags, published, series, canonical_url, cover_image) is explained with its meaning and role, including examples for tags and the behavior of the published flag. This is extensive and valuable.

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 starts with 'Publishes a blog post to dev.to,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the tool's action and target platform, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

The description implies usage (publishing to dev.to) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, a score of 3 reflects the implied but not explicit usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

publish_blog_to_devtoA