Unlike a project
unlike_projectRemove your upvote from a project. Idempotent — a no-op if you had not liked it.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project id or slug to unlike. |
unlike_projectRemove your upvote from a project. Idempotent — a no-op if you had not liked it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project id or slug to unlike. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explicitly states idempotency and no-op behavior for unliked projects, consistent with idempotentHint=true. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple idempotent tool with one param and no output schema. Idempotency detail covers behavioral edge case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, schema description coverage 100%. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Remove your upvote from a project.' Distinct from sibling tool like_project (adds upvote).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: use when you want to remove a like. No explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives like like_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.