Like a public artwork. Requires auth + 'write' scope.
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": {
"artwork_id": "<artwork_id>"
},
"name": "like_artwork"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artwork_id | Yes | Artwork UUID to like |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does add real value by disclosing the auth and 'write' scope requirement. It is silent on the traits that matter most for a mutation: whether liking an already-liked artwork is idempotent or errors, whether the action is reversible, and what is returned (no output schema exists).
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 sentences, action stated first and the prerequisite second. Zero filler and nothing to trim.
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 one-parameter mutation tool this covers the action and the auth prerequisite, which is the minimum an agent needs to attempt the call. Missing are the duplicate-like behavior and any confirmation of what a successful call yields, which matter given no annotations and no output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a description ("Artwork UUID to like"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The prose adds nothing about the identifier's format or source beyond what the schema states.
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?
"Like a public artwork" states a specific verb and resource, and the word "public" narrows scope. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious inverse sibling unlike_artwork, so it stops short of a 5.
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 requirement for auth and 'write' scope gives a usable precondition, and "public" implies private artworks cannot be liked. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus unlike_artwork or save_artwork, so usage is only implied.
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.