devto-mcp

devto_get_latest_articles

Retrieve recent DEV.to articles in chronological order with pagination. Set page and per_page to control output as a markdown list.

Instructions

Get the latest published articles on DEV.to ordered chronologically.

Args: page: Pagination page number (default 1). per_page: Number of articles to return (1-30, default 10).

Returns: Formatted markdown list of the most recent articles.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "devto_get_latest_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that results are ordered chronologically, limited to published articles, and returned as a formatted markdown list. It omits auth and rate-limit details, but for a simple public GET these are minor gaps.

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 compact and well organized: one purpose sentence followed by a short Args/Returns block. Every line adds useful information with no filler or tautology.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, it covers the essential invocation details and return format. However, it lacks any guidance for choosing it over overlapping siblings, and with no annotations it does not address auth or rate limits, leaving some contextual gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains that page is a pagination page with default 1 and gives per_page a range (1-30) and default 10. This is meaningfully more informative than the bare schema.

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 opening sentence clearly names the action ('Get') and the resource ('latest published articles on DEV.to') and adds the ordering ('chronologically'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like devto_list_articles or devto_search_articles, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as devto_list_articles, devto_search_articles, or devto_get_article. The description explains mechanics but not selection criteria, exclusions, or conditions.

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

Deploy Server