Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hashnode-mcp-server

hashnode-mcp-server

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Hashnode publication by host

hashnode_get_publication
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Hashnode publication metadata by host or custom domain to retrieve ID, title, URL, about, and author details.

Instructions

Fetch metadata for a Hashnode publication by its host/domain.

Args:

  • host (string): Publication host, e.g. "yourblog.hashnode.dev" or a custom domain

  • response_format: 'markdown' or 'json'

Returns: id, title, url, about, author info

Examples:

  • host: "thinkport.hashnode.dev"

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": {
      "host": "<host>"
    },
    "name": "hashnode_get_publication"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesPublication host, e.g. 'yourblog.hashnode.dev' or a custom domain
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.3
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description's only added behavioral value is the return-shape summary ('id, title, url, about, author info'), which matters since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about failure modes for unknown hosts or rate limits.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns/Examples block is scannable. The Args section is somewhat redundant with a 100%-covered schema, costing a little space, but nothing is padded or confusing.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers input format, an example, and the fields returned, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is guidance on what to do when the host is unknown or when this should be called relative to the post-listing tools.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the host description verbatim and adds a concrete example value, plus a terse note that response_format is 'markdown' or 'json' without explaining what markdown output looks like.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch metadata') and resource ('Hashnode publication') and identifies the lookup key ('by its host/domain'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling post/draft tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest relative, hashnode_get_me, whose return data partially overlaps ('author info').

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the resource it fetches; there is no statement of when an agent should call this rather than hashnode_list_posts or hashnode_get_me, nor any prerequisites such as needing a publication host before creating a draft. The example ('host: "thinkport.hashnode.dev"') illustrates input form but not selection criteria.

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