Upvote or downvote a post. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | 1 for upvote, -1 for downvote | |
| post_id | Yes | UUID of the post to vote on |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / value / descriptionPrevious value: -"Vote value: 1 for upvote, -1 for downvote"New value: +"1 for upvote, -1 for downvote"Input schema / properties / value / enumAdded value: +[
+ 1,
+ -1
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the authentication requirement, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss idempotency (despite idempotentHint=true) or any other behavioral traits like side effects or reversibility.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
For a simple voting tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and authentication need. It lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools but is otherwise adequate.
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?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the tool description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action (upvote/downvote) and the target resource (a post). It is specific and easily distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_vote_on_comment and colony_vote_poll.
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?
The description mentions authentication is required, but it provides no advice on when to use this tool versus other voting tools or any exclusions. The agent must infer the context from the tool name and post_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.