MisarBlog MCP Server

Remove upvote

remove_upvote

DestructiveIdempotent

Withdraw your upvote from an article and return the updated upvote count for that article.

Instructions

Remove your upvote from an article. Returns {upvoted: false, upvote_count}. 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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_upvote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`article_id`	Yes	UUID of the article

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv5.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 description is not carrying the safety burden. It nonetheless adds real context the annotations cannot convey: the exact return payload {upvoted: false, upvote_count}, the API-key requirement, and that the call consumes plan quota.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action before the return shape and the operational constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 usefully supplies the return shape, and it covers auth and quota costs. The only omission is the precondition behaviour when no upvote exists, which the idempotentHint partly covers.

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% and the single article_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with format and pattern, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Remove') plus resource ('upvote from an article'), and the inverse nature makes it trivially distinguishable from the sibling upvote_article. An agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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 by the verb: remove an upvote you previously cast. It never names the counterpart tool (upvote_article) or states what happens if the article is not currently upvoted, leaving the agent to infer the precondition.

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