Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hatena-blog-mcp

hatena-blog-mcp

by sumiVer2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ブログ情報取得

get_blog_info
Read-only

Retrieves the connected blog's title and available collections for entries and pages, and confirms configuration and authentication. Fixed-page collections are returned only for paid plans.

Instructions

接続先ブログのタイトルと、利用できるコレクション（記事・固定ページ）を取得する。設定と認証が正しいかの疎通確認にも使える。固定ページのコレクションは有料プランでのみ返る。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_blog_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that the 固定ページ collection is only returned on paid plans, preventing misinterpretation of an absent collection. It does not mention rate limits or response shape, 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, no filler: what is returned first, then the diagnostic use, then the paid-plan caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (title plus collection list). The paid-plan conditional is a helpful completeness detail; only a fuller statement of the response structure would push it higher.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description confuses this.

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?

States a specific verb (取得する) and concrete resources: the blog's title and the available collections (記事/固定ページ). This clearly separates it from siblings that list or manipulate individual entries/pages, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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?

Gives a clear use context - 疎通確認 for verifying settings and authentication - which tells the agent when this call is appropriate as a first step. It lacks explicit exclusions or a named alternative for other metadata needs, so it stops short of a 5.

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