MEME

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rate a meme (human rating)

rate_meme

Submit a 1–5 star human rating for a meme to capture subjective feedback that complements, but never defines, automated heuristic scores.

Instructions

Submit a 1–5 star human rating. Ratings are subjective opinions; they complement, never define, the heuristic scores.

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": {
      "memeId": "<memeId>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "rate_meme"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`memeId`	Yes
`rating`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important semantic trait that ratings are subjective and non-authoritative relative to heuristic scores, but says nothing about whether an existing rating can be changed or overwritten, whether authentication is required, or what happens on a duplicate submission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the semantic caveat second. There is no filler, although the second sentence is a bit abstract and could have carried a concrete operational detail instead of a purely conceptual one.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the meaning of the rating value but leaves the agent without knowledge of the response (confirmation only? updated aggregate?), memeId provenance, or re-rating behavior. Adequate but with clear operational 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 0%, so the description must compensate. '1–5 star' reinforces the rating parameter's range (already encoded as min/max in the schema), but memeId gets no explanation at all — no hint about where it comes from or expected format beyond minLength 1.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Submit a 1–5 star human rating') and adds a distinguishing qualifier: the rating is a subjective human opinion that 'complements, never define[s], the heuristic scores.' That separates it conceptually from the heuristic-evaluation sibling, though it never names that sibling outright.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'human rating' versus 'heuristic scores' tells an agent this is the manual, opinion-based path, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instruction and no named alternative. The agent must infer that evaluate_meme handles the automated scoring side.

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