Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MisarBlog MCP Server

MisarBlog MCP Server

by Misar-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove reaction

remove_reaction
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a like, clap, or bookmark from a specific article using its UUID and reaction type; requires an API key. Deprecated for new work—use upvote removal or unsave actions instead.

Instructions

Deprecated (the v1 reactions API sunsets on 2027-02-03): remove a specific reaction from an article. Use remove_upvote / unsave_article for new work. Requires API key.

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "remove_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesReaction type to remove: like, clap, or bookmark
article_idYesUUID of the article

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.2.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / article_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.1.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / article_id / description
      Previous value: -"UUID of the article to un-react to, from the `id` field of article tools."New value: +"UUID of the article"
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Which reaction to withdraw: 'like', 'clap', or 'bookmark'."New value: +"Reaction type to remove: like, clap, or bookmark"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / article_id / description
      Previous value: -"UUID of the article"New value: +"UUID of the article to un-react to, from the `id` field of article tools."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Reaction type to remove: like, clap, or bookmark"New value: +"Which reaction to withdraw: 'like', 'clap', or 'bookmark'."
  4. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations cannot: the deprecation timeline and the API-key auth requirement. It does not describe error behavior when the reaction is absent, but idempotentHint already implies that case is a no-op.

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?

Three short clauses with the deprecation warning front-loaded ahead of the action description and the migration path. Every clause carries decision-relevant information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers action, deprecation, migration path, and auth. The only missing piece is whether removing a non-existent reaction errors or silently succeeds, which is largely implied by idempotentHint.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented including the enum values for 'type'. The description only restates that a 'specific reaction' is removed from an article, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('remove a specific reaction from an article') and immediately flags the tool as deprecated with a sunset date. It also names the sibling tools to use instead, so an agent can distinguish it from remove_upvote and unsave_article without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when not to use it ('for new work' use remove_upvote / unsave_article) and gives the concrete sunset date of 2027-02-03 as the cutoff. The only gap is that it doesn't map which replacement covers the 'clap' reaction type, but the routing guidance is otherwise unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools