MisarBlog MCP Server

Get reputation

get_reputation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a creator's reputation score, tier and tier name, upvotes received, progress toward the next tier, and badges to assess their standing and track growth.

Instructions

Get a creator's reputation: score, tier and tier name, upvotes received, progress toward the next tier, and badges. Requires an API key; counts against your plan's request quota.

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "get_reputation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	Username of the creator, with or without a leading @

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv5.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: an API key is required and each call consumes plan quota, which matters for call budgeting.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the returned fields come first, then the operational constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it covers auth and quota. It stops short of noting error behavior for nonexistent users, which is the only remaining gap for such a simple single-parameter read.

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?

The single 'username' parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the optional leading '@'. The description adds nothing 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a creator's reputation') and enumerates exactly what comes back: score, tier, tier name, upvotes, next-tier progress, badges. It is clearly distinct from get_profile or get_analytics_summary, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this when reputation data is wanted, and the API-key prerequisite is stated. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_profile, nor any exclusion or failure case such as an unknown username.

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