Edit an existing Movable Type draft by specifying its blog and entry IDs, with optional changes to title, body, tags, and categories.
指定したIDの下書き記事を更新します。明示的に記事IDを指定して編集したい場合に使用します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | 新しい本文（オプション） | |
| tags | No | 新しいタグの配列（オプション） | |
| title | No | 新しいタイトル（オプション） | |
| blog_id | Yes | ブログID（サイトID） | |
| entry_id | Yes | 記事ID | |
| categories | No | 新しいカテゴリー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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether the update is partial (leaving unspecified fields untouched), whether it requires auth/permissions, or what happens on an unknown ID — all left to inference from the optional params.
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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage condition second. No wasted text, though very little total content is provided.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and trigger adequately but is silent on update semantics, permissions, and error behavior. Combined with the fully documented schema, it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 the schema already documents all six parameters including the optional body/title/tags/categories. The description adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema supplies, 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 (更新) and resource (下書き記事) scoped by an explicit ID, which implicitly distinguishes it from update_last_draft and create_draft. It does not name the sibling directly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 clause '明示的に記事IDを指定して編集したい場合に使用します' gives a clear usage condition that separates it from the implicit-target sibling update_last_draft. It never names the alternative tool or states exclusions, so it is not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.