lontar-mcp

update_post

Update an existing blog post by its slug, changing only the fields you provide such as title, body, excerpt, or publish status.

Instructions

Update an existing post by slug. Requires LONTAR_API_TOKEN. Only provided fields are changed.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "update_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Current post slug
`title`	No	New title (regenerates slug)
`body`	No	New body (Markdown)
`excerpt`	No	New excerpt
`published_at`	No	New publish date, or null to unpublish

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an authentication requirement and the partial-update behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the slug is missing, leaving some gaps.

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. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential context. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, or how to obtain the slug. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: 'New title (regenerates slug)' and 'New publish date, or null to unpublish' clarify side effects and null usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing post'), and the identifier ('by slug'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post, delete_post, or publish_post.

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 explicitly mentions the required authentication token ('Requires LONTAR_API_TOKEN') and the update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use comparisons but the guidelines are clear enough.

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

Deploy Server