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

hatena-blog-mcp

by sumiVer2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ブログ記事更新

update_entry

Update a Hatena Blog entry by changing only the fields you specify while preserving omitted values. Set draft=false to publish or replace categories when provided.

Instructions

ブログ記事を更新する。指定した項目だけを差し替える差分更新で、省略した項目は現在の値がそのまま残る。下書きを公開するには draft=false を指定する。categories を渡すと現在のカテゴリは完全に置き換わる。

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": "update_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftNo下書き状態。false にすると公開される
titleNo新しいタイトル
contentNo新しい本文（全文）
updatedNo投稿日時（ISO 8601）。省略時は現在の投稿日時を維持する
entry_idYes更新するブログ記事の ID
categoriesNoカテゴリ名の配列。指定すると既存のカテゴリを置き換える
custom_urlNoカスタム URL。省略時は変更しない
content_typeNo本文の記法。実際の解釈はブログの編集モード設定に従うため、ブログ側の設定と揃えること（既定: text/x-markdown）
preview_sharedNo下書きのプレビュー共有 URL を発行するか

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses diff semantics, that omitted fields are preserved, that categories are fully replaced (a destructive sub-behavior worth flagging), and how to publish a draft. Not covered: auth requirements or error behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the diff-update rule, then the two operationally important caveats. Nothing superfluous.

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 9-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behaviors an agent most needs (partial update, replacement of categories, publishing). Minor gaps remain around permissions and failure modes.

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 both parameters discussed (draft, categories) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that categories replace rather than append and that omitted fields persist, which adds modest value but largely restates schema content.

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+resource ('ブログ記事を更新する') that clearly distinguishes it from create_entry and update_page. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the resource noun '記事' vs 'ページ' makes the target unambiguous.

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?

The description explains the partial-update model ('指定した項目だけを差し替える差分更新で、省略した項目は現在の値がそのまま残る') and gives a concrete action trigger ('下書きを公開するには draft=false'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use this vs create_entry/update_page' routing, so it falls 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