sprkly_export_automation_templateDownload one Instagram auto reply as a shareable template. The file holds the trigger, the keyword and the message, and never a post id, a profile id or any account details, so it is safe to send to someone else. An auto reply that is still a draft has nothing published to export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| automation_id | Yes | The automation id to export. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the file contents, the privacy property ('never a post id, a profile id or any account details'), and the draft limitation. No annotation contradiction exists.
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?
Three concise sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, followed by security context and a useful caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a read-only, single-parameter export tool, the description sufficiently explains what the downloaded file is, what it contains, and one key limitation. It lacks only explicit error/return behavior for invalid or missing automation IDs, but that is not critical for invoking correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, automation_id, is already described as 'The automation id to export.' The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Download'), identifies the resource ('one Instagram auto reply'), and clarifies its purpose as a shareable template. It also names what the file contains and explicitly excludes IDs/account details, which distinguishes this export-oriented tool from its import sibling.
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?
Provides clear context for when to call it: exporting an auto reply for sharing. It adds a concrete exclusion for draft auto replies ('has nothing published to export') and explains the safe-to-share angle. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as sprkly_import_automation_template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: media ingestion, draft creation, scheduling, deleting, updating, validation, approval, analytics, and account/profile listing. The only slight overlap is between sprkly_list_profiles and sprkly_list_scheduled_posts, but they serve clearly different purposes (target selection vs. queue view).
All 16 tools follow the exact sprkly_verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. Verbs are consistent (add, delete, draft, get, list, request, schedule, update, validate) and nouns are clear (media, scheduled_post, account_summary, analytics, profiles, etc.). No style mixing or vague naming.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 sweet spot but each tool covers a distinct part of the content-scheduling lifecycle. The count feels justified given the breadth of features (media, drafts, scheduling, approvals, analytics), though a few tools could be merged (e.g., get_account_summary could be part of analytics) without much loss.
The surface covers the core workflows well: draft, schedule, update, delete, approve, validate, and analyze. Minor gaps exist—there's no explicit tool to list drafts or edit a draft after submission, and no direct way to unpublish or cancel an approval—but the domain is well-served for typical scheduling needs.