undo_clapRemove all your claps from a Medium post. Provide the post URL or hex ID to undo claps.
Remove all of the user's claps from a post. Only use when the user asks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | Post URL (any Medium or custom-domain link) or the post's hex id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Remove all' is consistent with those. It adds context that it affects the user's claps, which is useful, but it doesn't mention any side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements beyond what annotations imply. It adds some value but does not go beyond the annotation's baseline significantly.
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 extremely concise, one sentence long, and front-loads the action. Every word is meaningful. It loses a point because it lacks any structural organization, but for its brevity it is well-formed.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover safety (destructive hint). The description tells the agent when to use it. It is adequate but could mention that it only removes claps made by the current user and any potential need for authentication, though that is likely implied by 'the user's claps'.
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?
The schema covers the parameter 'post' with a clear description (URL or hex id), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.
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 clearly states the action (remove claps) and the resource (a post), and specifies it applies to 'the user's claps'. It is distinct from its sibling 'clap', which adds claps, and from other read/list tools. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it misses the top score.
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?
It says 'Only use when the user asks', which gives a clear trigger condition. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or mention any alternatives, such as 'clap' for adding claps. The instruction is useful but lacks exclusionary guidance, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.