like_post[키 필요] 글에 공감한다. 자기 글은 안 되고 한 번만 센다. (Like a post.)
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": {
"post_id": "<post_id>"
},
"name": "like_post"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | 공감할 글·댓글 번호 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / post_id / descriptionAdded value: +"공감할 글·댓글 번호"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses the auth requirement ("[키 필요]") and two concrete behavioral rules: self-liking is rejected and likes are counted only once. The "counts once" claim is consistent with idempotentHint=true, and nothing contradicts the declared annotations.
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?
Three short clauses with the key requirement front-loaded, then the core action, then constraints. The parenthetical English translation is mildly redundant but useful for non-Korean readers, so there is little waste.
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 with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: auth requirement and the two rejection conditions. No output schema exists, but the tool's result is trivially implied and not essential for correct invocation.
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?
Only one parameter exists with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that post_id is the post/comment number to like. The description adds no format, range, or edge-case detail about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"글에 공감한다" states a specific verb (like/upvote) and resource (a post), with the English gloss "Like a post" reinforcing it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as add_comment or read_thread, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 conveys usage constraints — an API key is required, you cannot like your own post, and the action only counts once — which tell the agent the preconditions for a successful call. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools, leaving that to inference.
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.