devto-mcp-server

update_devto_article

Update an existing dev.to article by its numeric ID. Modify title, description, tags, body, or other optional fields.

Instructions

Update an existing dev.to article by numeric article id.

Only fields provided as non-null arguments are sent. Pass api_key or set DEVTO_API_KEY.

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": "update_devto_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`series`	No
`api_key`	No
`published`	No
`article_id`	Yes
`main_image`	No
`description`	No
`body_markdown`	No
`canonical_url`	No
`organization_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses partial update semantics and authentication but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences front-load the key purpose and behavior. No superfluous words, but could benefit from additional structure if more detail were needed.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists (though not shown), so return values don't need description. However, given the large number of parameters (11) and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient to fully guide parameter usage. It covers the basic flow but lacks completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate for 11 parameters. It only mentions that non-null fields are sent, without explaining any individual parameter's meaning or constraints. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 verb (update) and resource (existing dev.to article) with a specific identifier (numeric article id). It distinguishes from siblings like create_devto_article (which creates) and get_devto_article (which retrieves).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains partial update behavior ('Only fields provided as non-null arguments are sent') and authentication method ('Pass api_key or set DEVTO_API_KEY'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides enough context for appropriate invocation.

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

Deploy Server