esa MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a new esa post

esa_create_post

Creates a new post in an esa team, accepting a title plus optional Markdown body, tags, category, and WIP status to draft or ship content.

Instructions

Creates a new post in an esa team with optional tags, category, and WIP status.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "esa_create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wip`	No	Whether the post is Work In Progress. Set to false to ship it (mark as complete and ready to be published)
`name`	Yes	The post name (title)
`tags`	No	Tags for the post
`bodyMd`	No	The post content in Markdown format. Use 4 spaces for indentation.
`message`	No	Update message for the post
`category`	No	Category path (e.g., 'dev/docs')
`teamName`	No	Team name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1Oct 31, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.13.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds essentially nothing behavioral: it does not say the post is created as WIP/draft by default, whether it is immediately visible to the team, what is returned on success, or how auth/team-membership failures surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, one required field, and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not state that teamName is effectively required for a team-scoped post, does not explain the default draft state, and gives no hint about the returned created post so the agent knows whether an id comes back for follow-up calls.

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 7 parameters is already documented, including the non-obvious wip default of true and the teamName prerequisite. The description merely echoes 'tags, category, and WIP status', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new post in an esa team') and enumerates the notable optional fields (tags, category, WIP). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like esa_get_post or esa_search_posts, though it never distinguishes itself from the near neighbors esa_update_post, esa_duplicate_post, and esa_append_post.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over esa_duplicate_post or esa_append_post, and no mention of the prerequisite that teamName must resolve to an existing team (the schema tells the agent to call esa_get_teams first, the description does not). Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Creates'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.