MisarBlog MCP Server

Repost article

repost_article

Idempotent

Share an article with your followers by publishing a repost with an optional note up to 280 characters. Publishing again updates the note.

Instructions

Repost an article to your followers, with an optional note (up to 280 characters). Needs reputation tier 1; you cannot repost your own article; notes are moderated. Reposting again replaces the note. Returns {reposted, repost_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": "repost_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No	Optional note shown with the repost, up to 280 characters
`article_id`	Yes	UUID of the article

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv5.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) it discloses the reputation-tier gate, the self-repost prohibition, that notes are moderated, that re-reposting overwrites the note (consistent with idempotentHint=true), the API-key requirement, and quota consumption. It also states the return payload, which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints, idempotency, and return shape. Each clause carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields; nothing is redundant filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

A two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations is fully served here: prerequisites, failure exclusions, repeat-call behavior, return values, and auth/quota cost are all present. No gap remains that would cause a mis-invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds essentially no new meaning for article_id while repeating the note's 280-character limit already present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the semantic work.

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 ('Repost an article') plus the audience ('to your followers') and an optional payload ('note'). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as remove_repost, save_article, or upvote_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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions and exclusions: 'Needs reputation tier 1' and 'you cannot repost your own article', and clarifies repeat-call semantics ('Reposting again replaces the note'). It never names an alternative tool for adjacent intents (e.g., save_article vs. repost), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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