Skip to main content
Glama
milcho0604

velog-mcp

by milcho0604
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

글 마크다운 백업

velog_export_posts
Destructive

Back up Velog posts by exporting each to a local markdown file with frontmatter. Specify output directory and optional username or limit; skip existing files to resume interrupted exports.

Instructions

한 사용자의 벨로그 글을 프론트매터가 붙은 마크다운 파일로 로컬에 저장한다. 벨로그에 공식 내보내기가 없어서 만든 기능이다. 파일 이름은 슬러그--글id.md 다 — 글마다 한 곳으로 정해지므로 같은 글을 다시 받으면 그 파일만 덮어쓴다. 글 본문을 한 편씩 받아오므로 글이 많으면 시간이 걸린다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo내보낼 최대 글 수
out_dirYes저장할 디렉터리 (절대경로 권장). 없으면 만든다
usernameNo@ 없이. 생략하면 인증된 내 계정을 쓴다
skip_existingNoout_dir 에 **이미 내보낸 글**은 건너뛴다. 파일 이름에 글 id 가 들어 있어 그 이름의 파일이 읽을 수 있는 일반 파일이고 비어 있지 않으면 «받았다» 로 본다 (내용은 읽지 않는다). 예산·취소로 멈췄을 때 같은 인자에 이것만 켜서 다시 부르면 남은 글부터 이어간다. 이름 규칙이 다른 옛 백업은 다시 받는다

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / skip_existing
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "out_dir 에 **이미 내보낸 글**은 건너뛴다. 파일 이름에 글 id 가 들어 있어 그 이름의 파일이 읽을 수 있는 일반 파일이고 비어 있지 않으면 «받았다» 로 본다 (내용은 읽지 않는다). 예산·취소로 멈췄을 때 같은 인자에 이것만 켜서 다시 부르면 남은 글부터 이어간다. 이름 규칙이 다른 옛 백업은 다시 받는다",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the deterministic file naming explains why re-downloading overwrites only that post's file, it discloses one-by-one fetching and the time cost for many posts, and it explains the skip_existing resume heuristic. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and enriches the safety profile meaningfully. It stops short of describing the return value or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences where the purpose leads, followed by the rationale and behavior notes (overwrite, performance). Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler; only the 'official export missing' rationale is arguably non-essential, keeping it from a 5.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, naming, overwrite, and performance well, and the schema covers parameters. However, it never hints at what the tool returns on success or failure for a local-file-writing operation, which an agent needs to confirm completion — especially given destructiveHint=true and the absence of an output schema.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (limit, out_dir, username, skip_existing). With full coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value beyond the schema — chiefly the file-naming convention that underlies skip_existing and overwrite semantics, but it does not clarify per-parameter syntax or formats beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description states a specific verb (export/save), a specific resource (one user's VeloLog posts), and a precise output format (markdown files with frontmatter saved locally). It also frames the file naming convention (slug--postid.md). None of the 21 sibling tools perform export, so it is clearly distinguishable by operation alone.

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?

The description explains the motivation ('no official export exists, so this was built') but never explicitly tells an agent when to use it vs. an alternative, nor names a substitute tool or exclusion condition. There is no sibling that overlaps with export, so usage is implied rather than stated; no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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