Skip to main content
Glama

article

Fetch Zenn.dev articles by author, topic, or date order to access technical content and documentation.

Instructions

Fetch articles from Zenn.dev

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameNoUsername of the article author
topicnameNoTopic name of the article
orderNoOrder of the articles. Choose from latest or oldest
pageNoPage number of the articles. Default: 1
countNoNumber of articles per page. Default: 48

Implementation Reference

  • Specific handler function for the 'article' tool. It converts the input arguments dictionary into an Article model instance and calls fetch_articles to retrieve data from Zenn.dev API.
    async def handle_articles(arguments: dict) -> dict:
        query = Article.from_arguments(arguments)
        return await fetch_articles(query)
  • Defines the input schema for the 'article' tool using Pydantic model fields, returned as a Tool object for MCP registration.
    def tool() -> Tool:
        return Tool(
            name=ZennTool.ARTICLE.value,
            description="Fetch articles from Zenn.dev",
            inputSchema={
                "type": "object",
                "properties": {
                    "username": {"type": "string", "description": Article.model_fields["username"].description},
                    "topicname": {"type": "string", "description": Article.model_fields["topicname"].description},
                    "order": {
                        "type": "string",
                        "description": Article.model_fields["order"].description,
                        "enum": [Order.LATEST.value, Order.OLDEST.value],
                    },
                    "page": {"type": "integer", "description": Article.model_fields["page"].description},
                    "count": {"type": "integer", "description": Article.model_fields["count"].description},
                },
                "required": [],
            },
        )
  • Registers the 'article' tool with the MCP server by including its Tool schema in the list_tools response.
    @server.list_tools()
    async def list_tools() -> list[Tool]:
        return [Article.tool(), Book.tool()]
  • Main MCP tool call handler decorated with @server.call_tool(). Dispatches 'article' tool calls to the specific handle_articles function and formats the JSON response as TextContent.
    @server.call_tool()
    async def call_tool(
        name: str,
        arguments: dict,
    ) -> Sequence[TextContent | ImageContent | EmbeddedResource]:
        try:
            logger.debug(f"Calling tool: {name} with arguments: {arguments}")
            match name:
                case ZennTool.ARTICLE.value:
                    result = await handle_articles(arguments)
                case ZennTool.BOOK.value:
                    result = await handle_books(arguments)
                case _:
                    raise ValueError(f"Unknown tool: {name}")
    
            return [TextContent(type="text", text=json.dumps(result, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False))]
    
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error processing {APP_NAME} query: {str(e)}")
            raise ValueError(f"Error processing {APP_NAME} query: {str(e)}")
  • Helper function that performs the HTTP request to fetch articles from Zenn.dev API using the query parameters derived from the Article model.
    async def fetch_articles(query: Article) -> dict:
        return await request(URLResource.ARTICLES, query.to_query_param())
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch articles' implies a read-only operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or what format/articles are returned. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - just 4 words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information in minimal space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. 'Fetch articles from Zenn.dev' doesn't explain what kind of articles, what data is returned, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with this complexity and no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more operational context.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'Fetch articles from Zenn.dev' - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, what combinations are valid, or provide context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Fetch articles from Zenn.dev' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (articles from Zenn.dev), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'book' - we don't know if 'book' fetches different content or serves a different purpose, so this lacks sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what scenarios it's designed for, or how it differs from the sibling 'book' tool. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shibuiwilliam/mcp-server-zenn'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server