Remove a like from an 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": "unlike_artwork"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artwork_id | Yes | Artwork UUID to unlike |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the auth and 'write' scope requirement, which is valuable context an agent must know before calling. However, for a mutation with no annotations it omits error behavior, idempotency, and confirmation of what is destroyed (a single like vs. nothing).
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 first, prerequisite second — no filler. Slightly terse given the mutation involved, but every sentence earns its place.
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?
A one-parameter mutation with no output schema is a low-complexity case, and the auth/scope requirement is the most important missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. Still, absence of annotations and any statement about result or failure leaves the agent inferring the rest.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'artwork_id' is documented as 'Artwork UUID to unlike.' The description adds no format or sourcing hints beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a like from an artwork.' The inverse relationship to the sibling like_artwork is clear from the wording, though it is never named explicitly, so differentiation depends on the agent reading the sibling list.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb (call this when you want to undo a like), and the description adds a real prerequisite: auth plus 'write' scope. It stops short of stating what happens if the artwork is not currently liked, or whether unlike is idempotent — the cases an agent most needs guidance on.
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.