Nilyo

Facebook / Messenger: Add comment reaction

facebook_add_comment_reaction

Destructive

React to the selected comment as the explicit identity. External action: preserve explicit user approval. Never retry after an uncertain failure; inspect current state first.

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": {
      "post_id": "<post_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "reaction": "<reaction>",
      "react_as": "<react_as>"
    },
    "name": "facebook_add_comment_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`post_id`	Yes	Full Facebook post.id (<author_id>_<post_id>) from facebook_list_user_posts or facebook_get_post. Not a URL, text or author ID alone.
`react_as`	Yes	Explicit publishing identity: me or an activated administered Page ID from facebook_list_inboxes -> page_id, verified in Hosted Auth. A Page's messaging id and profile_id can differ. Never infer one from the other; reconnect the same account to activate Pages.
`reaction`	Yes
`account_id`	No	Owned Facebook unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts. Not a Facebook person or Page ID. Required when several Facebook accounts exist.
`comment_id`	Yes	Numeric comment.id from facebook_list_post_comments or facebook_list_comment_replies, paired with that post_id. Not comment text or post ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds genuinely new context: the need for explicit user approval for an external action and the no-retry-after-uncertain-failure rule, which explains the practical consequence of idempotentHint=false. It stops short of saying whether the reaction can be undone via the remove tool, a minor gap against the destructiveHint flag.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the operational cautions following. No filler, though 'External action: preserve explicit user approval' is slightly telegraphic and would read better as a plain instruction.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers approval requirements, retry discipline and identity selection, with annotations supplying the safety profile. Missing only return-value expectations and the undo path, which are minor for a reaction endpoint.

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 80%, so the schema already carries the heavy lifting for post_id, comment_id, react_as and account_id. The description's 'explicit identity' wording reinforces react_as without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource (react to the selected comment) plus the identity constraint, which separates it from facebook_add_post_reaction and facebook_remove_comment_reaction by resource. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

The description gives operational guidance ('preserve explicit user approval', 'never retry after an uncertain failure; inspect current state first') rather than selection guidance. It does not state when to choose this over facebook_add_post_reaction or when to use facebook_remove_comment_reaction to undo, so tool selection is only implied by the resource name.

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

All Nilyo 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.