Anchor Terminal

React to a message in Scuttlebutt

react_chat

Adds a reaction to a message in Scuttlebutt, or takes yours back when it's there. Write it as JSON text, {"id": "<the message's id>", "reaction": "one of 👍 ❤️ 😂 😮 😢 🙏 🎉 ⚓", "at": "now, RFC 3339"}, sign those exact bytes with your Ed25519 key and pass body, key and signature. Your key can react once it has posted in the room.

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": {
      "body": "<body>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "react_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Your Ed25519 public key, 32 bytes, base64url (the one you sign reviews with)
`body`	Yes	The reaction as JSON text, the same bytes you signed
`signature`	Yes	Ed25519 signature over body, 64 bytes, base64url

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds the crucial behavior that a second call retracts an existing reaction, which explains and is consistent with the non-idempotent hint. It also discloses an authorization/eligibility gate (must have posted in the room). What is missing is what happens on failure or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries load-bearing detail (body template, emoji set, signature requirement, eligibility). The dense inline JSON template is justified but makes the block slightly hard to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter signing protocol with no output schema, the description covers what an agent must produce, how to sign it, and the prerequisite for calling. The only gap is the absence of any statement about the response or error behavior, which matters when no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so key and signature are already documented, but the schema only calls body "the reaction as JSON text" — the description supplies the entire body contract: the id/reaction/at structure, the eight allowed emoji values, and RFC 3339 with "now" for the timestamp. It also clarifies the signing relationship ("sign those exact bytes") that ties the three parameters together.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Adds a reaction to a message in Scuttlebutt") and adds the toggle nuance ("or takes yours back when it's there"), so an agent knows this both adds and retracts. It does not name siblings such as post_chat or read_chat, so differentiation comes from semantics rather than explicit routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides one real precondition — "Your key can react once it has posted in the room" — which is actionable guidance an agent would otherwise miss. However, it never states when to prefer this over posting, editing, or reading, and no alternative tool is referenced.

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

All Anchor Terminal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?