Skip to main content
Glama

star_entries

Idempotent

Star or unstar one entry (call once per entry). Starred entries stay visible in the Starred list even after unsubscribing from their feed; unstarring one from a feed the user has left removes it from view. Idempotent. Fails with a not-found error if the user has no such entry. Returns the entry's new state. To group entries under a name instead, use a collection (add_to_collection); to rank them, set_entry_scores.

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": {
      "entryId": "<entryId>",
      "starred": "<starred>"
    },
    "name": "star_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entryIdYesEntry ID
starredYesStar (true) or unstar (false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains nuanced lifecycle behavior: starred entries remain visible after unsubscribing, but unstarring from a left feed removes it from view. It also documents the not-found failure mode and that the entry's new state is returned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then layers in behavioral caveats, error behavior, and routing alternatives. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value ('the entry's new state') and the failure case. For a two-parameter mutation tool, this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both entryId and starred already clearly documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the one-entry-per-call scope, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Star or unstar one entry,' plus the scope constraint 'call once per entry.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools for grouping (add_to_collection) and ranking (set_entry_scores).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives clear when-to-use guidance and directly names alternatives: add_to_collection for grouping under a name, set_entry_scores for ranking. The 'call once per entry' directive also clarifies invocation scope.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.