Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nilyo

by com.nilyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Facebook / Messenger: Reply to comment

facebook_reply_to_comment
Destructive

Reply to this post's selected comment as the explicit identity, with at most one image. 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>",
      "text": "<text>",
      "comment_as": "<comment_as>"
    },
    "name": "facebook_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
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.
account_idNoOwned Facebook unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts. Not a Facebook person or Page ID. Required when several Facebook accounts exist.
comment_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.
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.
attachmentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with an approval requirement and a no-blind-retry rule that an agent could not infer from the annotations alone. It adds little about failure modes or what state is mutated, so a 4 rather than 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety constraints. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers identity pinning, the one-image limit, approval, and retry discipline. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned reply, but with annotations and inline schema docs carrying the rest, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 67% and the remaining properties (post_id, comment_id, account_id, comment_as) are already well documented inline. The description's only parameter-relevant additions — 'explicit identity' and 'at most one image' — restate what the schema's comment_as and maxItems: 1 already encode, so this is baseline-level value.

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 ('Reply to this post's selected comment') plus the identity and attachment constraints, which meaningfully separates it from facebook_comment_on_post and facebook_update_comment. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it sits just below the top band.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operating context: an external action that requires explicit user approval, and an explicit rule against retrying after uncertain failure in favor of inspecting state first. It does not name a sibling tool to use instead when the wrong comment/post is selected, which keeps it from a 5.

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