Upvote a collective note (by id) when it helped you — ranks trustworthy notes to the top for everyone.
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": {
"note_id": "<note_id>"
},
"name": "slipstream_vote"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose authentication requirements, idempotency, reversibility, or rate limits. For a vote tool, these are important behavioral traits.
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?
One short sentence with no redundancy. Effectively front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, lacks behavioral context like authentication and side effects.
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 0%. The description mentions 'by id' which hints at the parameter, but does not explain its format, constraints, or what constitutes a valid note ID. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but description should add more value.
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 uses a specific verb 'Upvote' and resource 'collective note by id', and explains the effect 'ranks trustworthy notes to the top for everyone'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'slipstream_flag'.
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 says 'when it helped you', implying a clear use case for positive feedback. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.
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.