Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@alog-world/mcp

@alog-world/mcp

by asicojp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_article

Update an existing article by modifying its title, body (Markdown), tags, visibility, or paywall price using its unique ID.

Instructions

既存記事を更新。タイトル、本文、タグ等を変更する

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes記事ID
titleNo新しいタイトル
body_markdownNo新しい本文（Markdown）
tagsNo新しいタグ
visibilityNo公開範囲
paywall_priceNo有料記事の価格

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update article' and lists fields, but does not mention idempotency, partial updates, validation, side effects, or required permissions. Significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with main action. Efficient but slightly vague with '等' (etc.). No wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, 6 parameters, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks return value information, partial update behavior, error conditions, and other practical details needed for correct usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by listing example fields (title, body, tags), but the schema already describes each parameter adequately. No additional meaning beyond schema.

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 (更新/update) and resource (既存記事/existing article), and lists the fields that can be changed (タイトル、本文、タグ etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_article and publish_article.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_article for new, publish_article for changing visibility), no prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states what it does without usage context.

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