Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nilyo

by com.nilyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Facebook / Messenger: Start conversation from inbox

facebook_start_conversation_from_inbox
Destructive

Start a personal Facebook conversation from an explicit personal inbox. Pages cannot start conversations; reply in an existing Page chat instead. 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": {
      "inbox_id": "<inbox_id>",
      "users_ids": "<users_ids>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "facebook_start_conversation_from_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
textYes
inbox_idYesExact inbox.id from facebook_list_inboxes, including PAGE_<page_id>_INBOX for a selected Page. Not a Page profile_id or connection account_id.
users_idsYes
account_idNoOwned Facebook unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts. Not a Facebook person or Page ID. Required when several Facebook accounts exist.
attachmentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds important context beyond them: this is an external action requiring explicit user approval, and callers must not retry after an uncertain failure but should inspect current state first. It still does not describe what specifically could be destroyed or what a success response contains.

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 earning its place, with the scope and Page exclusion front-loaded before the operational safety warnings. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a high-risk external action because it covers approval and retry safety, but with no output schema and weak parameter coverage it does not fully equip the agent with input formation guidance. The agent still lacks clarity on what name/text/attachments expect and what a successful response looks like.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters such as name and text. It says nothing about any parameter, leaving the agent to infer required inputs and formats entirely from the schema.

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: starting a personal Facebook conversation from an explicit personal inbox. It also rules out Page behavior, which helps distinguish it from Page-messaging paths, but it does not name the sibling tool an agent should use for Page conversations.

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 a clear precondition (must be an explicit personal inbox) and an explicit exclusion (Pages cannot start conversations; reply in an existing Page chat instead). It also adds operational guidance about requiring user approval and not retrying after uncertain failure, though it never names a concrete sibling tool alternative.

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