MisarBlog MCP Server

Upvote article

upvote_article

Idempotent

Upvote a blog article as the authenticated account holder; repeated calls are idempotent and return the updated upvote count.

Instructions

Upvote an article as the account holder. Idempotent: upvoting again changes nothing. Returns {upvoted, 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": "upvote_article"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the idempotency sentence is partly redundant. The description still earns credit for disclosing the return shape {upvoted, upvote_count}, the API-key requirement, and that the call consumes plan quota — none of which appear in the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then cost. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, idempotency, return shape, auth requirement, and quota cost. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% with a single well-documented UUID parameter, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing guidance for article_id, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Upvote an article') and scopes it to the authenticated account holder, which cleanly separates it from remove_upvote and the reaction tools. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 implied by the verb and the idempotency note tells the agent that repeat calls are harmless, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to remove_upvote as the inverse operation. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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