MisarBlog MCP Server

Unsave article

unsave_article

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an article from your saved list by UUID and receive the updated saved status and save count.

Instructions

Remove an article from your saved list. Returns {saved: false, 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": "unsave_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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by naming the return payload ({saved: false, save_count}) and disclosing that an API key is required and a request quota is consumed. It does not state what happens on a no-op call, but the idempotent annotation covers that.

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 tight sentences: action, return value, operational cost. The core operation is front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete — it even inlines the response shape and the quota cost. The only minor gap is error or already-unsaved behavior, which is partially implied by the idempotent annotation.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single UUID-typed article_id that already carries format and pattern constraints in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove an article') plus the scope ('from your saved list'), which cleanly separates it from save_article, list_saved, and the other article mutation siblings like update_article or remove_upvote.

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?

Usage is clearly implied by the name and the 'saved list' framing, but there is no explicit routing guidance, such as 'use save_article to add' or what to do if the article was never saved. The agent must infer the correct context.

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