Skip to main content
Glama
hatena-blog-mcp
by sumiVer2

ブログ記事検索

search_entries
Read-only

Searches Hatena Blog entries by title, body, or category using partial, case-insensitive matching, and paginates results to help find older posts.

Instructions

ブログ記事をページを辿りながら検索する。タイトル・本文・カテゴリを対象に部分一致(大文字小文字は無視)。はてなブログの API は一覧の 1 ページあたり件数が少ないため、まとめて探すときはこのツールを使う。古いブログ記事まで届かない場合は max_pages を増やす。

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": "search_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo返す最大件数
queryNoタイトル・本文・カテゴリに対する検索語
statusNo公開状態での絞り込みall
categoryNoカテゴリ名の完全一致で絞り込む
max_pagesNo走査する最大ページ数。多いほど古い記事まで届くが時間がかかる
include_contentNo結果に本文を含めるか

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 only declare readOnlyHint, so the description usefully adds that the tool walks multiple pages internally, that reach is bounded by max_pages, and that deeper scans cost time — real behavioral traits beyond the annotation. It does not state result ordering or what happens when limit is hit mid-page.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and followed by the operational caveat. Nearly every sentence earns its place, with only minor overlap between the paging rationale and the max_pages tip.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers matching semantics, paging behavior and the depth trade-off. It leaves out return shape and ordering, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so all six parameters including max_pages and status are already documented in the schema. The description's note about raising max_pages largely restates the schema text '多いほど古い記事まで届くが時間がかかる', so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('ブログ記事を…検索する') plus scope: title, body and category, partial match, case-insensitive. The sentence about Hatena's small page size implicitly separates it from list_entries, which only enumerates.

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 concrete condition for choosing this tool ('まとめて探すときはこのツールを使う') and a recovery hint ('古いブログ記事まで届かない場合は max_pages を増やす'). It never names list_entries as the alternative for simple enumeration, so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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