noyacg-mcp

编辑帖子

noy_edit_post

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the title or body text of your own existing post by passing only the fields to change. Confirm content first with a read, since edits overwrite and cannot modify images or spoilers.

Instructions

修改自己帖子的标题和/或正文（只传要改的字段，未传的沿用当前值）。只能改文字，改不了图片和 spoiler；编辑不会把帖子顶到前面。⚠️ 会覆盖原内容，请先 noy_read_post 确认。

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": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "noy_edit_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`adult`	No	是否请求成人向内容（allow-adult 请求头）。不传则用环境变量 NOY_ALLOW_ADULT，默认 false。注意 /api/home 的服务端默认值是 true（不带就是 R18），本项目会显式传 false。
`title`	No
`content`	No
`post_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description earns credit by adding non-annotation behavior: partial-update merge semantics, the overwrite warning with a read-first precaution, and the fact that editing does not bump the post. It stops short of describing the response or any permission/ownership failures.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the edit scope, then exclusions, then the risk warning. Every clause carries new information; nothing repeats the name or schema.

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?

Covers scope, merge semantics, overwrite risk and the read-first precaution for a mutation tool with no output schema. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented adult parameter and no hint about what the tool returns after a successful edit.

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 coverage is only 25%: title, content and post_id carry no schema descriptions, so the description's 'only pass fields you want changed' note is genuinely useful. However, the adult parameter — which has unusual env-var and server-default semantics — is never mentioned in the description, leaving that gap unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (修改/编辑) and resource (自己帖子的标题和/或正文), and immediately scopes it with '只能改文字，改不了图片和 spoiler'. That scope note cleanly separates it from noy_create_post and noy_upload_images without needing their schemas.

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?

Says explicitly to pass only the fields being changed and that omitted fields keep current values, and it routes the agent to noy_read_post as a pre-check. No explicit 'when not to use' or pointer to a sibling for image/spoiler changes, which keeps it from a 5.

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