PostRite

Reply to a comment

reply_to_comment

Post a public reply on the network, as the connected account. It always goes to the thread's top-level comment (no network nests deeper). Length limit per network: INSTAGRAM 2200, FACEBOOK 2200, THREADS 500, TIKTOK 1200 characters. Refused, with the reason, when the item's actions.canReply is false — e.g. HIDDEN_CANNOT_REPLY (Instagram cannot reply to a hidden comment: unhide it first), DELETED_ON_PLATFORM, CONNECTION_INACTIVE, MISSING_PERMISSION, ROLE. Posting the same text over and over reads as spam to Instagram: vary the wording. Replying marks the comment answered; resolve it with set_comment_status. Needs the organization's "Let AI assistants answer comments and messages" setting (owner-only; without it the api answers MCP_INBOX_DISABLED) and a connection authorized with the comments/chat permissions — one authorized before they existed must reconnect, and a client that kept its own registration from before then must remove PostRite and add it again.

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": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	The reply text, as it will appear on the network
`commentId`	Yes	Comment ID from list_comments
`savedReplyId`	No	The saved reply this text started from (list_saved_replies), so the team's usage count includes it. Optional; never changes what is sent — fill the reply's {{name}}/{{firstName}} fields yourself.
`organizationId`	No	Organization to act in — an id from list_organizations. Required when this connection was authorized for more than one organization; omit it when there is only one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write; the description adds the per-network character limits, the canReply precondition with enumerated refusal codes and their remedies, identical-text spam risk, and the account/auth prerequisites. This is exactly the behavior-beyond-annotations context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense block that front-loads purpose and limits before preconditions and failure codes; nearly every sentence carries operational information. It is on the long side and the client re-registration troubleshooting sits at the tail, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers permissions, settings, refusal codes and platform limits. For a 4-parameter write tool with side effects, an agent has everything needed to call it successfully or diagnose failure.

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 already 100%, so parameters are documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description does add some meaning the schema lacks — the platform-specific limits (THREADS 500, TIKTOK 1200) refine the flat maxLength 2200 — but it says nothing about commentId or organizationId beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ("Post a public reply on the network, as the connected account") plus a scope constraint ("always goes to the thread's top-level comment"). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like send_message (DMs), set_comment_status (resolution) and delete_comment without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent onward ("Replying is not resolving — use set_comment_status") and lists the conditions under which the call is refused. It does not explicitly contrast with send_message for private replies, so the alternative-channel guidance is only implied by the word "public".

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

All PostRite tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?