Create a new draft post in Movable Type with a title, body, blog ID, and optional tags or categories; it is saved to the session for later editing.
Movable Typeに新しい下書き記事を作成します。作成した記事は自動的にセッションに記憶され、update_last_draftで編集可能になります。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | 記事本文（HTML可） | |
| tags | No | タグの配列（オプション） | |
| title | Yes | 記事のタイトル | |
| blog_id | Yes | ブログID（サイトID） | |
| categories | No | カテゴリーIDの配列（オプション） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the disclosure burden and delivers a meaningful stateful behavior: the created entry is automatically stored in session and becomes editable via update_last_draft. It still omits whether the draft is ever published, required permissions/auth, and what identifier (if any) comes back.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the session/editing consequence second; every clause carries information and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key post-call behavior (session storage, subsequent editing path), which is what an agent most needs to know. It stops short of stating return values, error conditions, or permission requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (blog_id, title, body, tags, categories) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or optionality, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('新しい下書き記事を作成します' – creates a new draft article in Movable Type), and explicitly names the sibling that handles the follow-up editing step (update_last_draft). An agent can distinguish this from update_draft/update_last_draft without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage flow (create, then edit the session-remembered draft with update_last_draft), which is useful routing context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, prerequisites, or distinction from update_draft for existing drafts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.