Sliq

Generate monitored post comment

generate_monitored_post_comment

Destructive

Prefer this over queue_linkedin_post_engagement (with your own text) when acting on a post from the agent's monitored-posts feed. Pass a row id from query_monitored_posts. Only posts with no queued comment are eligible ('filtered', 'skipped', 'skipped_no_credit', 'captured', 'surfaced'); already-commented, queued, or user-rejected posts are refused. A queued-status dict in one of three forms. {'queued': True, 'awaiting_approval': bool, 'status': 'queued', 'draft_comment': str, 'agent_id': int, 'message': str} on success (1 credit charged); agent_id is the agent monitoring the post {'queued': False, 'deduped': True, 'message': str} if a comment is already queued {'queued': False, 'error': 'not_found'|'not_eligible'|'out_of_credits'|'no_draft'} otherwise, or with an error sentence when the draft ran too long for LinkedIn

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": {
      "monitored_post_id": "<monitored_post_id>"
    },
    "name": "generate_monitored_post_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`on_behalf_of`	No	A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.
`monitored_post_id`	Yes	The `id` of a monitored_posts row (from query_monitored_posts).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description

Previous value: -"A teammate's email (one with team actions turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description

Previous value: -"Draft on a consented teammate's monitored post instead of your\nown — pass their email; the 1-credit charge lands on their account. Gated\non that teammate's act-on-behalf setting; a teammate who hasn't granted it\nis rejected. Omit for your own.\nOr pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."New value: +"A teammate's email (one with team actions turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / as_teammate

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Draft on a consented teammate's monitored post instead of your\nown — pass their email; the 1-credit charge lands on their account. Gated\non that teammate's act-on-behalf setting; a teammate who hasn't granted it\nis rejected. Omit for your own."
-}

addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Draft on a consented teammate's monitored post instead of your\nown — pass their email; the 1-credit charge lands on their account. Gated\non that teammate's act-on-behalf setting; a teammate who hasn't granted it\nis rejected. Omit for your own.\nOr pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."
+}

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the 1-credit charge, the side effect of flipping the post's feed status to 'queued', the dedupe behavior, and the specific error modes (not_found, not_eligible, out_of_credits, no_draft, over-length draft). It does not explain approval mechanics in depth (who approves, whether the draft can be edited before posting), which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the sibling preference before eligibility detail, and the summary/returns structure is scannable. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause carries operational information (credit cost, state flip, refusal states, return shapes).

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the three return shapes (success with draft_comment and agent_id, deduped, and the error variants). Combined with the credit cost, eligibility rules, and side effects, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraint semantics for monitored_post_id: only rows in 'filtered', 'skipped', 'skipped_no_credit', 'captured', or 'surfaced' state will be accepted, and already-commented, queued, or user-rejected posts are refused. on_behalf_of is not discussed in prose, but the schema documents it fully, including the list_agency_clients reference.

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 chain and resource: draft and queue a comment on one monitored post that has no queued draft, using the same drafting engine as the monitor sweep. It explicitly contrasts itself with queue_linkedin_post_engagement, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit preference rule ('Prefer this over queue_linkedin_post_engagement with your own text when acting on a post from the monitored-posts feed'), names the source of the required id (query_monitored_posts row), and enumerates exactly which post states are eligible versus refused.

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

All Sliq 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?