MisarBlog MCP Server

Save article

save_article

Idempotent

Saves an article to a read-later list so users can bookmark content and return to it later; repeated saves are idempotent and the response includes saved status and save count.

Instructions

Save an article to your saved list to read later. Idempotent. Returns {saved, save_count}. Requires an API key; counts against your plan's request quota.

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": "save_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article_id`	Yes	UUID of the article

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv5.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Idempotent' sentence is partly redundant, but the description adds genuinely new context: the return shape {saved, save_count}, the API-key requirement, and that the call consumes plan quota. That quota/auth disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and intent, then behavior, then operational constraints. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, return shape, auth, and quota cost. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single well-documented article_id (UUID format and pattern), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save an article to your saved list') plus the intent ('to read later'), which cleanly separates it from unsave_article and list_saved among the siblings.

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 'read later' framing implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling unsave_article as the inverse operation. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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