velog-mcp

edit_post

Change a Velog post's content and settings. Provide the post ID to update its title, body, tags, slug, series, thumbnail, or privacy.

Instructions

Edit an existing post on Velog (requires authentication)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "edit_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Post ID to edit
`body`	No	New body (markdown)
`tags`	No	New tags
`title`	No	New title
`url_slug`	No	New URL slug
`series_id`	No	Series ID
`thumbnail`	No	New thumbnail image URL
`is_private`	No	Whether the post is private

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions authentication but does not disclose whether edits are partial or full replacements, how existing fields are handled, side effects, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a key prerequisite with zero wasted words.

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?

Despite a complex 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the description omits critical contextual details such as return values, success/error behavior, and the effect on existing post fields. This leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to use confidently.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already documents each field clearly, so no compensation is needed.

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?

The description 'Edit an existing post on Velog' clearly states the verb (edit) and resource (post), and 'existing' distinguishes it from write_post. It is specific and unambiguous, though it could explicitly contrast with write_post or delete_post for full differentiation.

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?

The description provides only a prerequisite ('requires authentication') and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like write_post or delete_post, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server