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

hashnode-mcp-server

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update an existing Hashnode draft

hashnode_update_draft

Modify an existing Hashnode draft by updating titles, content, subtitles, and metadata. Specify only the fields requiring changes using the draft's ID.

Instructions

Update fields of an existing draft. Only provided fields are changed.

Args:

  • draft_id (string, required): Draft ID to update

  • title (string, optional): New title

  • content_markdown (string, optional): New content in Markdown

  • subtitle (string, optional): New subtitle

  • tags (array, optional): New tags as [{ name, slug }]

  • cover_image_url (string, optional): New cover image URL

  • response_format: 'markdown' or 'json'

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_update_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoNew tags as [{ name, slug }]
titleNoNew title
draft_idYesDraft ID to update
subtitleNoNew subtitle
cover_image_urlNoNew cover image URL
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'markdown
content_markdownNoNew content in Markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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
    • removedInput schema / properties / tags / items / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the patch semantics ('only provided fields are changed'), but says nothing about auth/ownership requirements, whether an already-published draft can be edited, or the side effects of the update.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence. The Args list duplicates the schema and is somewhat redundant, but it is compact and scannable rather than rambling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition omits what is returned (beyond implying response_format) and any preconditions such as draft ownership or edit restrictions. Adequate, but an agent would still have gaps before calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the Args block largely restates the schema verbatim. It adds no format guidance beyond what the schema gives (e.g., nothing on tag limits or markdown conventions). 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Update fields of an existing draft') and adds the partial-update qualifier. The resource name 'draft' technically separates it from hashnode_update_post, though the description never explicitly says so.

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?

'Only provided fields are changed' implies patch usage, but there is no guidance on when to update a draft versus publish it (hashnode_publish_draft) or when to edit a post instead. Usage must be inferred from the tool name.

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