devto-mcp

devto_list_articles

List DEV.to articles filtered by tag, author, post state, or top timeframe, returning a markdown summary list for easy reading.

Instructions

List articles from DEV.to with optional filters.

Args: tag: Filter by tag (e.g. 'python', 'webdev', 'ai'). username: Filter by specific author username (e.g. 'thepracticaldev'). state: Article state: 'fresh' (recently published), 'rising' (trending), or 'all'. top: Filter top articles by timeframe in days (e.g. 1 for today, 7 for week, 30 for month, 365 for year). page: Pagination page number (default 1). per_page: Number of articles to return (1-30, default 10).

Returns: Formatted markdown list of article summaries.

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_list_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`top`	No
`page`	No
`state`	No
`per_page`	No
`username`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return format ('Formatted markdown list of article summaries') and implies pagination via page and per_page parameters. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It provides some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are concise yet informative, each on its own line. It is appropriately sized for six parameters, though it could be slightly more compact by grouping related filters, but it is not verbose.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), so the description must provide sufficient context. It explains all filters and the return format, but it lacks information about edge cases (e.g., empty results), how to combine filters, or when to use this tool vs. siblings. It also does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but has gaps in usage guidance and error handling.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does this excellently: every parameter (tag, username, state, top, page, per_page) is described with examples, allowed values, and defaults. For instance, state is explained with 'fresh', 'rising', or 'all', and top is described as a timeframe in days with examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 description clearly states 'List articles from DEV.to with optional filters', specifying the verb (list) and resource (articles). It is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like devto_search_articles or devto_get_latest_articles, which also list articles in some form. The purpose is evident, but the lack of sibling distinction prevents 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives like devto_search_articles for keyword-based queries or devto_get_latest_articles for recent articles. There is no explicit 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

Deploy Server