Remove an unwanted like from a message or photo to correct mistakes and keep reactions accurate.
Remove a like from a message/photo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral detail beyond what is already structured. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or any other operational characteristics, leaving the annotations as the sole source of safety information.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. This is appropriate for the simplicity of the action, but not enough to compensate for missing parameter context.
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?
Given that this is a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks essential details about what identifiers to supply, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.
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% and the description says nothing about the parameters. An agent cannot determine what 'id' refers to (message ID? photo ID?) or the role of optional 'frameId', making correct invocation guesswork.
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?
The description 'Remove a like from a message/photo' uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (like on message/photo), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool skylight_like_message. It leaves no ambiguity about the core action.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (when the user wants to undo a like on a message/photo), but it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not reference other tools or scenarios where this would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.