noyacg-mcp

点赞 / 取消点赞

noy_like_post

Idempotent

Likes or unlikes a community post by checking its current state and confirming the result, with an explicit action option to prevent duplicate toggles.

Instructions

给帖子点赞或取消点赞。接口是开关式（调一次翻转一次），所以本工具会先读当前状态再决定要不要调，并在调用后回读确认。可以指定 action=like / unlike 表达明确意图，避免重复调用把自己又取消掉。

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": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "noy_like_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`adult`	No	是否请求成人向内容（allow-adult 请求头）。不传则用环境变量 NOY_ALLOW_ADULT，默认 false。注意 /api/home 的服务端默认值是 true（不带就是 R18），本项目会显式传 false。
`action`	No	like = 点赞；unlike = 取消；toggle = 翻转	like
`post_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the read-before-write and read-after-verify behavior, which explains and justifies the idempotentHint annotation instead of contradicting it. It does not mention auth requirements, failure modes, or what the verification response looks like, so it is not exhaustive.

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 purpose, followed by the behavioral gotcha and then the recommended parameter usage. No filler and every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential hazard (toggle semantics) and the mitigation. What is still missing are side effects/errors and any mention of the adult flag, though the schema documents that parameter.

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 67% and the enum descriptions for action already cover like/unlike/toggle, so the description's action explanation largely restates the schema. post_id and adult are not elaborated in the description at all — baseline 3 for schema-driven semantics.

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+resource pair (给帖子点赞或取消点赞) and adds the crucial scoping fact that the upstream API is a switch, not two endpoints. No sibling tool overlaps with this action, so disambiguation is moot but the tool's identity is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to pass action=like / unlike when it has clear intent, and warns that blind re-invocations will toggle the state back — a concrete usage rule. It stops short of stating when a caller should prefer toggle over explicit action, but that is minor.

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