Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phabricator-mcp

phabricator-mcp

by freelancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

phabricator_blog_post_edit

Destructive

Modify an existing Phame blog post's title, body, visibility, associated blog, or subscribers through the Phabricator Conduit API.

Instructions

Edit an existing Phame blog post

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": {
      "objectIdentifier": "<objectIdentifier>"
    },
    "name": "phabricator_blog_post_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoNew post body content (supports Remarkup)
titleNoNew post title
commentNoAdd a comment alongside the edit (supports Remarkup)
blogPHIDNoMove post to a different blog (PHID)
subtitleNoNew post subtitle
visibilityNoVisibility: 0 (draft), 1 (published), 2 (archived)
objectIdentifierYesPost PHID or ID
addSubscriberPHIDsNoSubscriber PHIDs to add
removeSubscriberPHIDsNoSubscriber PHIDs to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.19

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain partial-update semantics (are omitted fields cleared or preserved?), that objectIdentifier is required, or the effect of visibility changes. For a destructive 9-param edit tool, this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is arguably under-specified rather than concise for a destructive 9-parameter tool. It is efficient but does not earn extra credit for structure or prioritization.

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 a destructive mutation with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover update semantics, required identifier consequences, and what destructiveHint implies in practice. None of that is present; the schema covers parameters, but behavioral context needed to invoke safely is missing.

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% — all 9 parameters are documentedly described in the schema (including Remarkup support, visibility enum meanings, subscriber add/remove). The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, 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?

Stated verb+resource: 'Edit an existing Phame blog post' clearly identifies mutation of a blog post, distinguishing it implicitly from phabricator_blog_post_create and phabricator_blog_post_add_comment. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the boundary (e.g., adding a comment vs editing).

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no prerequisites stated. An agent must infer that it should use this rather than create or add_comment from the name alone. 'Existing' hints at update-only but no explicit condition is given.

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