Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
substack-mcp

substack-mcp

by nanameru
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_draft

Update an existing draft by providing only the fields you want to change, such as title, subtitle, content, or audience setting. Requires draft ID.

Instructions

Update an existing draft. Provide only the fields you want to change.

Args: post_id: Draft ID returned by create_draft or list_drafts. title: New title (optional). subtitle: New subtitle (optional). content_markdown: New body in Markdown (optional, replaces full body). audience: New audience setting (optional).

Returns: Updated draft summary.

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": "update_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYes
titleNo
subtitleNo
content_markdownNo
audienceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains partial update behavior and return of a draft summary. It does not disclose permissions or side effects, but given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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 concise, structured with an Args and Returns section, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It could optionally list possible audience values, but overall it's sufficient for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including the source of post_id and the effect of content_markdown replacing the full body.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing draft' and lists the modifiable fields, clearly distinguishing from siblings like create_draft and delete_draft.

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?

It advises 'Provide only the fields you want to change,' indicating partial updates, and implies usage when an existing draft needs modification. However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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