Featurebase MCP Server

add_upvoter

Add an upvoter to a Featurebase post by providing the post ID, upvoter email, and name to record user feedback and support for feature requests.

Instructions

Add an upvoter to a post

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_upvoter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Post ID
`email`	Yes	Upvoter email
`name`	Yes	Upvoter name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the upvoter already exists, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after adding an upvoter, what the return value might be, or address potential error conditions. Given the complexity of a write operation, more contextual information is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three required parameters (id, email, name). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and target resource ('an upvoter to a post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_upvoters' or explain what distinguishes adding an upvoter from other post-related operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_post_upvoters' or 'update_post'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient usage context.

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

Deploy Server