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

hatena-blog-mcp

by sumiVer2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

固定ページ取得

get_page
Read-only

Fetches one Hatena Blog fixed page with its body, categories, and publish status so you can confirm current content before editing.

Instructions

固定ページを 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。 固定ページははてなブログの有料プランでのみ利用できる。無料プランでは 404 が返る。

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_idYes固定ページの ID。一覧・検索の戻り値の pageId、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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds real context beyond it: content is returned in registered markup, the paid-plan requirement, the 404 failure mode, and that include_formatted_content inflates output size. With no output schema, more detail on the returned structure would have pushed this higher.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then contents, then the workflow rule, then the plan constraint. Every sentence carries information; density is slightly high but nothing is wasted.

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?

Covers the safe-read profile via annotations plus return contents, plan gating, and failure behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. Absent an output schema, a brief note on the response envelope would be the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already cover both page_id acceptance forms and the include_formatted_content size warning. The description adds only 本文（登録記法のまま）, a minor note on content format, so this sits at the baseline.

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 (固定ページを1件取得) and enumerates what comes back (本文, カテゴリ, 公開状態), which clearly separates it from the plural list_pages/search_pages siblings. It never names get_entry or the update_page/create_page siblings, so the entry-vs-page boundary is only implied.

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 an explicit workflow rule (編集前に必ずこれで現状を確認する) that ties the tool to update_page, and a hard prerequisite (paid plan only, 404 on free plan). No exclusions or named alternatives beyond that, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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