maiat-protocol

vote_review

Upvote or downvote a review based on firsthand experience. Reward reviewers with +2 Scarab for accurate reviews.

Instructions

Upvote or downvote a review. Only vote when you have firsthand experience with the reviewed entity. Upvotes reward the reviewer +2 Scarab.

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": {
      "reviewId": "<reviewId>",
      "vote": "<vote>"
    },
    "name": "vote_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reviewId`	Yes	The review ID to vote on
`vote`	Yes	'up' if the review matches your experience, 'down' if it contradicts on-chain data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses a behavioral consequence (upvotes reward the reviewer +2 Scarab) beyond the basic action. Without annotations, this adds valuable transparency, though downvote effects are not stated.

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?

Two sentences provide all necessary information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no annotations and simple schema, the description covers purpose, usage guideline, and a key behavioral effect. Lacks output details, but acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no new information beyond schema; it restates the enum meanings but does not elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 clearly states the action (upvote/downvote a review) and the resource (review), distinguishing it from siblings like submit_review or report_outcome.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises voting only with firsthand experience, providing clear guidance on when to use. Does not discuss alternatives or when not to use, but sufficient for context.

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

Deploy Server