Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Append content to an existing esa post

esa_append_post
Destructive

Append Markdown content to an existing esa post and save it as a new revision without fetching the current body first; ideal for adding log entries or meeting notes.

Instructions

Appends Markdown content to the end of an existing post's body, saving it as a new revision. Unlike esa_update_post, this does not require fetching the current body first, making it ideal for adding to a post (e.g. log entries, meeting notes). Optionally set wip to change the WIP state.

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": {
      "postNumber": "<postNumber>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "esa_append_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wipNoWIP state after the insert. Defaults to the post's current WIP state
contentYesThe Markdown content to insert. Use 4 spaces for indentation. Line endings are normalized to LF. Include a blank line at the boundary to insert it as a separate block.
messageNoChange message. Defaults to "Updated via API." when omitted
teamNameNoTeam name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.
postNumberYesThe post number to add content to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is known. The description adds real context: the write is additive, it creates a new revision (recoverable via esa_rollback_post_revision), and wip can be toggled. It doesn't cover auth or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences total, front-loaded with the core action, then the sibling contrast and use cases. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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 five-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, alternative, revision behavior, and the wip toggle. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what the call returns (e.g. the updated post/revision), so an agent cannot predict the response.

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 parameter is already documented with detail (indentation, LF normalization, blank-line boundary, default message). The description only echoes the wip option and adds no syntax or constraint information beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it appends Markdown to the end of an existing post's body and saves it as a new revision. It explicitly contrasts this with the sibling esa_update_post, so an agent can distinguish it without reading either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternative (esa_update_post), explains why this tool is preferable (no need to fetch the current body first), and gives concrete use cases such as log entries and meeting notes. The 'append to end' framing also implicitly separates it from esa_prepend_post.

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