devto-mcp-server

get_devto_article

Retrieve the full content of a dev.to article by its ID, including markdown, tags, and reactions.

Instructions

Retrieve a full dev.to article by its ID.

Args: article_id: The numeric ID of the article.

Returns: Full article object including body_markdown, tags, reactions, etc.

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_devto_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return object's contents (body_markdown, tags, reactions) and implies read-only behavior. There is no contradictory information.

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 with two short paragraphs: one for purpose and parameter, one for return value. It front-loads the key action and contains zero superfluous text.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It explains what the tool does, what input is needed, and what the output contains.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that article_id is 'the numeric ID of the article.' This compensates for the missing schema descriptions and clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve a full dev.to article') and the identifier ('by its ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_devto_posts (which searches) and create/update (write operations).

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 when you have the article_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or when to prefer alternatives like search_devto_posts. The context is clear but not exclusionary.

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

Deploy Server