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

hatena-blog-mcp

by sumiVer2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ブログ記事取得

get_entry
Read-only

Retrieves a single Hatena Blog entry with its body, categories, and publication status so agents can review current content before editing.

Instructions

ブログ記事を 1 件取得する。本文（登録記法のまま）・カテゴリ・公開状態を含む。編集前に必ずこれで現状を確認する。

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": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entry_idYesブログ記事の ID。一覧・検索の戻り値の entryId、または編集 URL をそのまま渡してもよい
include_formatted_contentNoHTML に変換済みの本文も含めるか。出力がかなり大きくなる

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 still adds meaningful behavior: the body is returned in raw 'registered notation' rather than rendered, and category/publication status are included — details an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then contents, then the workflow directive. No wasted words and nothing redundant.

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 only two fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers what is needed: what is fetched, what the return contains, and the pre-edit check. No output schema exists, and the description compensates adequately by listing returned fields.

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% and the schema itself explains that entry_id accepts an entryId from list/search or the edit URL, plus the size warning on include_formatted_content. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with scope ('ブログ記事を 1 件取得する') and enumerates what is returned (本文・カテゴリ・公開状態). This clearly separates it from list/search siblings by the '1件' scope, though no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

'編集前に必ずこれで現状を確認する' gives an explicit when-to-use rule tied to the edit workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives (e.g. list_entries/search_entries), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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