Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
medium-writer-mcp

medium-writer-mcp

by MuhammadAsher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_article

Convert Markdown drafts to HTML pages for pasting into Medium's editor. Preserves headings, links, lists, images and code blocks without requiring an API token.

Instructions

Write the article as an HTML page to copy-paste into Medium's editor (no token needed).

Runs prepare_article first, then converts to HTML. The user opens the file in a browser, selects all, copies, and pastes into medium.com/new-story; Medium keeps headings, bold, links, lists, quotes, images and code blocks. Tell the user the output path and pass on the warnings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "export_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoUp to 5 tags (entered in Medium's publish dialog).
titleNoStory title. Defaults to the first '# ' heading.
markdownNoArticle Markdown, if there is no file.
subtitleNoOne-line subtitle shown under the title.
file_pathNoPath to the article's .md file. Use this or `markdown`.
output_pathNoWhere to write the .html. Defaults to <file>.medium.html next to the input, or ./medium-export.html.
canonical_urlNoOriginal URL if cross-posting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and locality profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: no token/auth needed, an implicit call to prepare_article, the fact that warnings are produced and must be surfaced, and the fidelity guarantees (headings, bold, links, lists, quotes, images, code blocks). It does not say whether an existing file at output_path is overwritten, which is the main behavioral gap for a file-writing tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the operational workflow, with zero filler. The line breaks inside the parenthetical and mid-sentence are slightly awkward but do not obscure meaning.

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?

For a seven-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the downstream user steps, and warnings well. It leaves open what happens if neither file_path nor markdown is supplied and whether an existing output file is replaced, both material for a file-writing export tool.

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%, so every one of the seven optional parameters is already documented in the schema, including the file_path-versus-markdown choice and the output_path default. The description adds essentially nothing parameter-level beyond restating 'tell the user the output path.' Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb plus output artifact: 'Write the article as an HTML page to copy-paste into Medium's editor (no token needed).' It also ties itself to the prepare_article sibling by stating it runs that first. It stops short of differentiating itself from open_in_medium, another Medium-publishing sibling, so an agent must infer which publishing path applies.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the no-token manual path where the user opens the HTML in a browser, selects all, and pastes into medium.com/new-story, with explicit instructions to report the output path and relay warnings. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over open_in_medium or another publish route.

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