Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hive MCP Server

Hive MCP Server

by gluneau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vote_on_post

Vote on any Hive post with a weight from -10000 to 10000, enabling upvotes or downvotes using your configured account.

Instructions

Vote on a Hive post (upvote or downvote) using the configured Hive account.

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": {
      "author": "<author>",
      "permlink": "<permlink>",
      "weight": "<weight>"
    },
    "name": "vote_on_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authorYesAuthor of the post to vote on
weightYesVote weight from -10000 (100% downvote) to 10000 (100% upvote)
permlinkYesPermlink of the post to vote on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'using the configured Hive account' but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavioral constraints (e.g., cannot vote on same post twice).

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary and no extraneous content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the tool is simple with 3 fully-documented parameters, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need a configured account) and behavioral details. It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'vote', the resource 'Hive post', and the action types 'upvote or downvote'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings as the only voting tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. The description simply states what it does without any usage instruction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools