toggle_repostReposts a track to your followers or removes the repost if it already exists, letting you toggle sharing for any author and track permalink.
Reposts a track to the account's followers, or takes the repost back when it already exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track permalink, e.g. "my-mix" from https://hearthis.at/djname/my-mix/ | |
| author | Yes | Profile permalink, e.g. "djname" from https://hearthis.at/djname/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description usefully explains the toggle conditional, which is exactly why the annotations flag idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true. However, it stops short of the operational consequence: because there is no read tool to check repost state, a blind second call silently undoes a repost. That hazard, and any permission requirement, goes undisclosed.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the conditional reversal. Every clause earns its place 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?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with safety annotations, the description covers the core action adequately. What is missing is the state-discovery question a non-idempotent toggle forces on the caller, plus what a successful toggle returns or confirms.
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 100% and both parameters are documented with permalink format examples, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about 'author' or 'track' beyond what is already structured, which is the expected baseline rather than a gap.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Reposts'), a precise resource ('a track'), and the scope ('to the account's followers'), then clarifies the undo semantics. An agent can distinguish it from get_track or post_comment without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts with the parallel toggle_like/toggle_follow siblings.
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 'or takes the repost back when it already exists' clause implies the usage condition, but it is stated as tool behavior rather than as guidance to the caller. There is no instruction on how to determine whether the repost currently exists, nor any exclusion or alternative named among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.