Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides tools to search and retrieve articles from dev.to, including by query, tag, or ID, enabling access to technical articles, tutorials, and posts.

How do I use devto-mcp-server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@devto-mcp-server search dev.to for AI articles" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

devto-mcp-server

by HappyMonkeyAI

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

devto-mcp-server

MCP server providing tools to search, retrieve, create, and update articles via the dev.to API.

For agent planning workflows, use the umbrella server article-research-mcp (article_research in Dynamic MCP catalogue) — dedupe, ranked briefs, methodology, and save_research_note.

Agent docs: CONTEXT.md, HERMES.md, docs/adr/

Tools

search_devto_posts: Search dev.to articles by query, with optional tag, limit, etc.
get_devto_article: Fetch full article by ID or slug.
search_by_tech: Search articles by technology/tag (e.g., python, ai, mcp).
create_devto_article: Create a draft or published dev.to article. Uses DEVTO_API_KEY unless api_key is passed.
update_devto_article: Update fields on an existing dev.to article. Uses DEVTO_API_KEY unless api_key is passed.

Related MCP server: mcp-devto

Auth for write tools

Create a DEV API key at https://dev.to/settings/extensions, then set:

export DEVTO_API_KEY=your_key_here

For local development, you can also put the key in the repo-local .env file:

DEVTO_API_KEY=your_key_here

.env is ignored by git; .env.example documents the expected variable.

create_devto_article defaults published to false so new API-created posts are drafts unless explicitly published.

Usage with dynamic-mcp-proxy-server

Add to catalogue.json:

{
  "name": "devto",
  "description": "dev.to MCP server — search and read technical articles, tutorials, and posts",
  "command": "uvx devto-mcp-server",
  "tags": ["devto", "articles", "blog", "tech", "research", "tutorials"],
  "tech_stack": ["any"],
  "runtime": "stdio",
  "env_vars": []
}

Run directly:

uv run devto-mcp-server

Or with uvx after publishing (for now local: uvx --from . devto-mcp-server)

Configuration for Claude Desktop

Add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json (located at ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS, or %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json on Windows):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "devto": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "/absolute/path/to/devto-mcp-server",
        "run",
        "devto-mcp-server"
      ]
    }
  }
}

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

5 tools

create_devto_articleA

Create a dev.to article or draft using the authenticated DEV API.

Args: title: Article title. body_markdown: Article body in markdown. published: Publish immediately when true. Defaults to false for safety. tags: Comma-separated tags, e.g. "python,ai,mcp". description: Short article description. canonical_url: Original/canonical URL when cross-posting. series: Optional DEV series name. main_image: Optional main image URL. organization_id: Optional DEV organization id. api_key: Optional DEV API key. If omitted, DEVTO_API_KEY is used.

Returns: The created article object from dev.to.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`series`	No
`api_key`	No
`published`	No
`main_image`	No
`description`	No
`body_markdown`	Yes
`canonical_url`	No
`organization_id`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses creation of draft vs published, authentication method, and default safety. Does not mention rate limits or idempotency but covers major behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with a lead sentence, parameter list, and return description. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose for the number of parameters.

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 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all inputs, behavior, and return. Missing error handling details but adequate for standard usage.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explains every parameter (title, body_markdown, published, tags, etc.) with sufficient detail, adding meaning beyond the bare 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 states 'Create a dev.to article or draft using the authenticated DEV API.' This clearly identifies the verb (create), resource (article/draft), and distinguishes from sibling tools (search, get, update).

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?

Provides clear context: 'using the authenticated DEV API,' default published=false for safety, and fallback to environment variable for API key. No explicit when-not-to-use, but sufficient guidance for typical usage.

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

get_devto_articleA

Retrieve a full dev.to article by its ID.

Args: article_id: The numeric ID of the article.

Returns: Full article object including body_markdown, tags, reactions, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article_id`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return object's contents (body_markdown, tags, reactions) and implies read-only behavior. There is no contradictory information.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short paragraphs: one for purpose and parameter, one for return value. It front-loads the key action and contains zero superfluous text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It explains what the tool does, what input is needed, and what the output contains.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that article_id is 'the numeric ID of the article.' This compensates for the missing schema descriptions and clarifies the parameter's purpose.

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 ('Retrieve a full dev.to article') and the identifier ('by its ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_devto_posts (which searches) and create/update (write operations).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have the article_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or when to prefer alternatives like search_devto_posts. The context is clear but not exclusionary.

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

search_by_techA

Search articles by technology/tag. Convenience wrapper around search.

Args: tech: Technology or tag (e.g. 'python', 'fastapi', 'mcp', 'ai'). per_page: Number of results. top_days: Return top articles from last N days (7, 30, etc.). If None, does text search on tag.

Returns: List of matching articles.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tech`	Yes
`per_page`	No
`top_days`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions it returns a list of articles but omits whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects.

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?

Description is concise (5 lines), well-structured with clear argument descriptions, and no superfluous text.

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?

Explains purpose, parameters, and return value, but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings and does not cover error cases or edge effects. Output schema exists but is not detailed.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: explains tech with examples, per_page as result count, and top_days with conditional behavior (None triggers text search).

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 tool searches articles by technology/tag and identifies itself as a convenience wrapper, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_devto_posts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides parameter-level guidance (e.g., top_days behavior) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling search_devto_posts or when not to use it.

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

search_devto_postsA

Search dev.to articles.

Args: query: Search term (searches title, body, tags, user). tag: Optional tag filter (e.g. 'python', 'ai'). per_page: Number of results (max 30). page: Pagination page. top: If set (e.g. 7 for past week), returns top articles instead of search.

Returns: List of article summaries with id, title, url, tags, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`top`	No
`page`	No
`query`	Yes
`per_page`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that query searches multiple fields, tag filters, and top changes behavior to return top articles. Missing details on authentication or rate limits, but acceptable for a search tool.

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?

Well-structured with Args and Returns sections, but slightly verbose. Could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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 all 5 parameters with clear explanations and mentions return type. Output schema is indicated. No major gaps for a search tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, but description explains each parameter's purpose (query searches title/body/tags, tag optional filter, per_page max 30, page pagination, top switches mode). Adds significant meaning beyond property names.

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?

Clearly states 'Search dev.to articles' with a list of arguments and return type. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_devto_article but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., search_by_tech).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage through description of arguments, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. No when-not or context for choosing over search_by_tech.

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

update_devto_articleA

Update an existing dev.to article by numeric article id.

Only fields provided as non-null arguments are sent. Pass api_key or set DEVTO_API_KEY.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`series`	No
`api_key`	No
`published`	No
`article_id`	Yes
`main_image`	No
`description`	No
`body_markdown`	No
`canonical_url`	No
`organization_id`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses partial update semantics and authentication but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences front-load the key purpose and behavior. No superfluous words, but could benefit from additional structure if more detail were needed.

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?

Output schema exists (though not shown), so return values don't need description. However, given the large number of parameters (11) and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient to fully guide parameter usage. It covers the basic flow but lacks completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate for 11 parameters. It only mentions that non-null fields are sent, without explaining any individual parameter's meaning or constraints. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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 verb (update) and resource (existing dev.to article) with a specific identifier (numeric article id). It distinguishes from siblings like create_devto_article (which creates) and get_devto_article (which retrieves).

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 partial update behavior ('Only fields provided as non-null arguments are sent') and authentication method ('Pass api_key or set DEVTO_API_KEY'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides enough context for appropriate invocation.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

5 tool updatesv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026
- First observedcreate_devto_article
- First observedget_devto_article
- First observedsearch_by_tech
- First observedsearch_devto_posts
- First observedupdate_devto_article

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Tools `search_devto_posts` and `search_by_tech` both search articles with overlapping functionality (tag filtering, top results), causing ambiguity. An agent may struggle to choose the appropriate one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a `verb_noun` pattern (`search_devto_posts`, `get_devto_article`, etc.), but `search_by_tech` breaks the pattern with a preposition, and inconsistent pluralization (`posts` vs `article`).

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering search, retrieval, creation, and update, the count is well-scoped for a dev.to article management server, neither too sparse nor too heavy.

Completeness4/5

Basic CRUD operations are present except deletion, and search covers multiple query patterns. Minor gap in missing delete or listing all user articles, but core workflows are covered.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

stackexchange-mcp-server A
io.github.cyanheads
Search Stack Exchange questions, fetch Q&A threads as markdown, look up tag FAQs and user profiles.
Search Research & Data
522
acopioOAuth
dev.acopio
Search and get recommendations from your own saved catalog of developer tools and services.
Developer Tools Search Knowledge & Memory
2
Misar.Blog MCP Server A
io.github.Misar-AI
Publish and manage articles, series, comments, reactions, newsletters and blog analytics.
Content Management Systems Marketing
2311
Search1API AOAuth
io.github.superagents-lab
Web search, news, page retrieval, sitemaps, and trending topics through Search1API.
Search Browser Automation
51173

Related MCP Servers

Dev.to MCP Server
Content Management Systems Search Developer Tools
nickytonline
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables interaction with the dev.to platform through its public API. Allows users to retrieve articles, user profiles, tags, comments, and perform article searches without requiring authentication.
Updated a year ago (2025-10-09 12:22 UTC)
45
-
mcp-devto
Search Open Data Developer Tools
pipeworx-io
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Wraps the DEV Community API to enable AI agents to read public Devto articles and posts without authentication.
Updated 11 days ago (2026-08-26 17:00 UTC)
13
MIT
Blog-MCP
Content Management Systems Social Media
Dharshini195
F
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Provides MCP tools to interact with Dev.to, enabling searching, browsing, and publishing articles through natural language.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-30 08:54 UTC)
-
Dev.to MCP Server
Content Management Systems Social Media Developer Tools
sathick187
F
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI agents to interact with the Dev.to platform through MCP tools, including article search, retrieval, and creation.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-30 09:06 UTC)
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HappyMonkeyAI/devto-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server