AccountHub

set_shared_item_like

Idempotent

Like or unlike another member’s visible AccountHub shared project item. Requires active membership. Set the desired liked state; retrying the same state does not create another reaction or notification. A new like notifies the original author if they still belong to the project. Returns item_id, liked, like_count, changed and reactions ([{emoji, count, mine, users:[{id,name}]}]).

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "liked": "<liked>"
    },
    "name": "set_shared_item_like"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`emoji`	No	Optional chat reaction: a single emoji (👍 ❤️ 😆 😮 😢 🙏 or any other). One reaction per person per message; sending a different emoji replaces yours, liked=false removes it. With an emoji you may also react to your own message. Omit it for the classic 👍 like on another member’s item.
`liked`	Yes	Desired state: true likes the item; false removes your like. Repeating the same state is safe.
`item_id`	Yes	A visible item placed by another member of your AccountHub project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / emoji

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional chat reaction: a single emoji (👍 ❤️ 😆 😮 😢 🙏 or any other). One reaction per person per message; sending a different emoji replaces yours, liked=false removes it. With an emoji you may also react to your own message. Omit it for the classic 👍 like on another member’s item.",
+  "maxLength": 16,
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations: discloses that retries don't double-notify, that a new like notifies the original author only if they still belong to the project, and enumerates the return payload. That is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before mutating shared state.

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 tight sentences with zero redundancy: purpose and scope first, then precondition, idempotency, side effect, and return shape in descending priority.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description spells out the return fields, and for a 3-parameter mutation with complete schema coverage it leaves nothing material an agent needs unresolved.

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 description coverage is 100%, so item_id, liked and emoji are already fully documented in the schema with semantics and edge cases. The description only restates the desired-state concept, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond structured fields.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (like/unlike) and a precisely scoped resource: another member's visible AccountHub shared project item. The scope restriction ('another member’s visible ... item', plus the emoji caveat) separates it from the generic add_reaction/remove_reaction siblings.

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?

States the precondition ('Requires active membership') and the correct call pattern ('Set the desired liked state; retrying the same state does not create another reaction'). It doesn't explicitly route the agent to add_reaction/remove_reaction for chat-message reactions, so alternative selection is only implied.

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

All AccountHub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?