lontar-mcp

create_post

Creates a new blog post with a title and body. Optionally set an excerpt or publication date; omit the date to save as a draft.

Instructions

Create a new blog post. Requires LONTAR_API_TOKEN. Slug is auto-generated from the title. Omit published_at to create a draft.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Post title
`body`	Yes	Post body (Markdown)
`excerpt`	No	Short excerpt
`published_at`	No	ISO 8601 publish date; omit to save as draft

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It discloses that slug is auto-generated, token requirement, and draft vs. published behavior. It does not mention return value or potential side effects, but covers essential behaviors.

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?

Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could specify return value, but it covers creation behavior, required auth, and parameter semantics adequately. For a 4-param tool with good schema descriptions, it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the published_at parameter ('omit to create draft') and implies title affects slug. However, it does not add significant detail for title, body, or excerpt beyond the schema.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Create a new blog post', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_post, get_post, etc., by focusing solely on creation.

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 when to use (to create a new post) and provides key guidance: requires LONTAR_API_TOKEN, and omitting published_at creates a draft. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like publish_post or update_post.

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

Deploy Server