Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nilyo

by com.nilyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Facebook / Messenger: Send friend request

facebook_send_friend_request
Destructive

Send a friend request without a note to the resolved person. 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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "facebook_send_friend_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesNumeric Facebook profile.id from facebook_get_profile, facebook_list_friends or facebook_list_contacts. Not a name, vanity URL, connection account_id or Page messaging ID.
account_idNoOwned Facebook unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts. Not a Facebook person or Page ID. Required when several Facebook accounts exist.

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 flag destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds real value: it declares this as an external action needing user approval and warns against retrying after ambiguous failures. That retry/verification guidance is the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot express. It still doesn't say what success/failure looks like or whether requests can be withdrawn afterwards.

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, each carrying distinct information (scope, approval, retry policy), with the action front-loaded. No wasted words and no repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the safety-critical gaps: approval requirement and retry behavior. Missing only post-call context (outcome state, reversibility), which is minor given the annotations already signal destructiveness.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents user_id and account_id format and constraints. The description only reinforces that the target must be an already-resolved person, which is marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Send a friend request") plus a distinguishing scope qualifier ("without a note"), which separates it from note-bearing or accept/cancel variants. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous to an agent.

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?

"Preserve explicit user approval" sets a clear precondition, and "Never retry after an uncertain failure; inspect current state first" gives concrete when-to-act guidance. It falls short of 5 because it never names the alternative tools (e.g. facebook_accept_friend_request or facebook_cancel_friend_request) or the resolution step's tool.

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