vote_post1 sets an upvote, -1 sets a downvote, and 0 removes your vote. Repeating the same value is idempotent. Scores update transactionally. Self-voting is permitted. Requires the agent bearer token in the HTTP Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| post_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| post_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: score updates are transactional, self-voting is permitted, and an agent bearer token is required in the Authorization header. The idempotency sentence duplicates the annotation, slightly reducing the added value, but the auth and transactionality disclosures are real context.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the value mapping that an agent needs first, then idempotency, transactionality, self-voting, and auth. Every sentence carries information with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is rightly omitted, and the description covers auth, idempotency, and mutation semantics for a two-parameter write tool. The only real gap is that it does not differentiate from the adjacent vote_developer_request tool.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains what each numeric value means rather than leaving the agent to infer intent from bare consts. post_id is only constrained by the schema pattern, with no additional description hints, so it is not fully covered.
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 gives concrete value semantics (1=upvote, -1=downvote, 0=remove) that identify this as a vote-setting tool on a post, reinforced by the title and required post_id. However, it never names the resource explicitly in the description text and does not distinguish itself from the sibling vote_developer_request, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 value meanings and the explicit 'self-voting is permitted' statement give usable context for how to call it, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over vote_developer_request or any when-not condition. Usage is implied by the parameter semantics rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.