Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nilyo

by com.nilyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Facebook / Messenger: Remove comment reaction

facebook_remove_comment_reaction
Destructive

Remove this identity's selected comment reaction. 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_remove_comment_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYesFull 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_asYesExplicit 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.
reactionYes
account_idNoOwned Facebook unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts. Not a Facebook person or Page ID. Required when several Facebook accounts exist.
comment_idYesNumeric 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.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context those annotations cannot convey: that this is an external user-visible action requiring explicit approval, and that retrying after an uncertain failure is forbidden. What exactly is destroyed is clear from the purpose sentence; the remaining gap is that it doesn't say what to do after a confirmed success or how state is verified.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operative action comes first and the safety constraints follow. The terse "External action:" tag reads as a policy label rather than prose, which is slightly abrupt but does not waste space.

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?

For a 5-parameter destructive social action with no output schema, the description covers the things an agent could get wrong: approval requirement, no-retry-after-uncertain-failure, and state inspection before acting. Parameter identification details are fully handled by the 80%-covered schema, so little is missing.

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 parameter burden with detailed guidance on post_id, comment_id, react_as and account_id. The phrase "this identity's selected" loosely maps to react_as and reaction, and "selected" implies a reaction that already exists, but no parameter semantics are added beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove ... comment reaction") and scopes it to "this identity's selected" reaction, which separates it from facebook_add_comment_reaction and facebook_remove_post_reaction without naming them. It does not explicitly mention which sibling to use first to inspect state, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"preserve explicit user approval" and "inspect current state first" imply a precondition and a preparatory read (presumably facebook_list_comment_reactions), but neither an alternative tool nor an explicit when-not condition is named. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.

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

All Nilyo toolsInspect
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