Botsify

Stream user message

stream-user-message

Stream an agent reply for a website or API user via POST /v1/converse/stream. Set chat_complete true to use /v1/converse/chat/stream.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fbId`	Yes	End-user id, maximum 16 characters
`append`	No	When false, do not append the user text to stored chat history
`messages`	No	Optional prior conversation messages for context
`chat_complete`	No	When true, POST /v1/converse/chat/stream instead of /v1/converse/stream
`current_messages`	Yes	Latest user text to send to the agent

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	JSON or plain text body returned by the Botsify HTTP API

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the endpoint and chat_complete behavior, but does not disclose additional side-effect risks, rate limits, or stream consumption details. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences convey the core purpose and a key variant, with no filler. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks context on streaming behavior (e.g., how to consume the stream) and does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100%, with all five parameters documented. The description's mention of chat_complete only repeats the schema's existing documentation, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Stream') and resource ('an agent reply') with an explicit endpoint, and scopes the target as 'website or API user', which differentiates it from builder-related tools and send-message tools.

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?

It provides context that this tool streams messages and mentions the chat_complete toggle for a different endpoint, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like send-user-message or stream-builder. The audience scoping ('website or API user') gives some guidance, but exclusions are absent.

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

All Botsify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as send-converse-message, send-inbox-message, send-user-message, and stream-user-message, which all deliver messages but with subtle differences. Similarly, list-bot-messenger-users and list-messenger-users both fetch messenger users, and start-builder-chat, clear-builder-conversation, and store-builder-response all manage builder chat state. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are still confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use hyphenated lowercase verb-noun format, but the verbs and nouns vary significantly in specificity. For example, 'get-query-response' vs 'query-mcp-agent' vs 'stream-user-message' all imply querying but with different styles. The pattern is readable but not highly predictable, with some names like 'change-user-activation' and 'patch-instruction-section' deviating from the simple verb_object structure.

Tool Count2/5

With 44 tools, this server feels overloaded. The breadth covers bots, messaging, templates, whitelabel, and versions, but many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple message-sending variants). The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', making it difficult for agents to select the right tool without extensive context.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main lifecycle: agent creation, versioning, deployment, deletion, messaging, conversation history, user management, template management, and whitelabel operations. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete for WhatsApp templates or update operations for user attributes, but these are workable edge cases. Core workflows are well supported.

Resources

Need Help?