Queue a RedNote note like for human approval before it executes, with a default 10-like daily cap; pass noteTitle so the reviewer sees the target.
Queue a like on a note for human approval. Does NOT like it yet. Likes have their own daily cap (10 by default). Pass noteTitle so the human sees which note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| noteTitle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the like is deferred pending human approval, that it is not applied immediately, and that a daily cap (10 by default) applies. It omits what happens after approval, whether duplicate requests are deduped, and any auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-critical fact (it does not actually like the note) is front-loaded right after the verb. Nothing repeats the tool name or wastes tokens.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs before calling it. It could be slightly stronger by describing what a successful call returns or how the queued item is later approved, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It usefully explains why noteTitle exists ('so the human sees which note'), but the required `url` parameter is never mentioned or characterized (presumably the note's URL), leaving half the surface undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (queue a like) and resource (a note), and immediately clarifies the deferred semantics with 'Does NOT like it yet.' This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling write tools like rednote_post_comment or rednote_create_post, which act immediately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the operating context (queued for human approval, daily cap of 10) so the agent understands this is a request-queueing tool rather than a direct action. It does not explicitly point to rednote_open_approval_page or rednote_queue_status as the follow-up/alternative, so routing to siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.