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

hashnode-mcp-server

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Publish a Hashnode draft

hashnode_publish_draft

Publish an existing Hashnode draft as a live blog post by providing its draft ID, returning post details such as URL and publication date.

Instructions

Publish an existing draft, making it a live blog post.

Args:

  • draft_id (string, required): Draft ID to publish (from hashnode_create_draft or hashnode_list_drafts)

  • response_format: 'markdown' or 'json'

Returns: post id, title, slug, url, publishedAt, tags

Examples:

  • Create draft → publish: hashnode_create_draft → hashnode_publish_draft

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "hashnode_publish_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draft_idYesDraft ID to publish
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is largely covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the state transition to a public live post and the returned fields, but says nothing about repeat-publish behavior, failure modes for an already-published draft, or whether the change is reversible.

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 description is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then organized into Args, Returns, and an Examples block. It is slightly list-heavy for a two-parameter tool, but every section carries information rather than restating the name.

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?

With no output schema, the definition correctly compensates by naming the return fields (post id, title, slug, url, publishedAt, tags), and both parameters are documented at full coverage. Only edge-case behavior — re-publishing, invalid or non-draft IDs — is left uncovered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by identifying the upstream tools that produce a valid draft_id. The response_format arg is only echoed, not explained in terms of when to pick json over markdown.

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 definition gives a concrete verb plus resource ('Publish an existing draft') and adds the outcome ('making it a live blog post'), so the effect is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling hashnode_publish_post, leaving the draft-vs-post split to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states where draft_id comes from ('from hashnode_create_draft or hashnode_list_drafts') and supplies the create→publish workflow example, which is actionable context. It never says when to use this instead of hashnode_publish_post, or what precondition the draft must satisfy.

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