Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
velog-mcp

velog-mcp

by mrpumpkin98
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

벨로그 글 조회

velog_get_post
Read-only

Retrieve a specific Velog post by its URL slug, returning the full markdown body.

Instructions

url_slug 로 글 하나를 가져옵니다. 마크다운 본문(body)까지 포함합니다.

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": {
      "url_slug": "<url_slug>"
    },
    "name": "velog_get_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
url_slugYes글 URL 의 마지막 조각
usernameNo벨로그 계정명(@ 제외)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only adds that the markdown body is included. This provides some extra context but does not disclose other behaviors like response size or pagination. No contradiction.

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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning return type), but it is not overly verbose.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not mention the optional username parameter's default behavior or the exact format of url_slug, but these are covered in the schema. Mostly complete.

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%; both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (fetches) and resource (post by url_slug), and mentions it includes markdown body, distinguishing it from sibling tools like velog_list_posts which lists posts without body.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage when a single post by url_slug is needed, but does not contrast with velog_list_posts or mention exclusion criteria.

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