ReplyOnTheFly

Write a review request message

write_review_request_message

Read-onlyIdempotent

Writes short messages a business owner can text or email to a customer to ask for a Google review, adapted to the type of business. Use it when someone wants more Google reviews or asks how to ask a customer for a review. Returns up to three ready-to-send options with the owner's review link at the end. It does not send anything. The messages never offer incentives, which Google prohibits.

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": {
      "business_name": "<business_name>"
    },
    "name": "write_review_request_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`channel`	No	text (SMS or WhatsApp) or email. Defaults to text.
`review_link`	No	The business's Google review link if the owner has it (https://...). Leave out and the messages use a placeholder.
`business_name`	Yes	Name of the business asking for the review.
`business_type`	No	What kind of business it is, e.g. "plumber", "hair salon", "restaurant". Picks the right wording.
`customer_first_name`	No	The customer's first name, if the owner gave it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`channel`	Yes
`options`	Yes
`review_link_needed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool sends nothing ('It does not send anything'), that it returns up to three ready-to-send options with the owner's review link appended, and that messages never offer incentives because Google prohibits them. These are exactly the constraints an agent needs and none of them are in the structured fields.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then return shape then behavioral caveats; every sentence carries information. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, since the return-value sentence is partly redundant with the output schema.

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 generation-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, output shape, and the critical 'does not send / no incentives' constraints. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 100% and each of the five parameters is documented in the schema, including the channel enum and the review_link placeholder behavior. The description reinforces a couple of these ('adapted to the type of business', link placement) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 artifact ('Writes short messages a business owner can text or email to a customer to ask for a Google review') plus the key modifier that output is 'adapted to the type of business'. The distinction from the sibling write_review_reply is implicit (request vs. reply) rather than stated, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 an explicit triggering condition: 'Use it when someone wants more Google reviews or asks how to ask a customer for a review.' That is a clear when-to-use, though it names no exclusions or the sibling tool as the alternative for handling an existing review.

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

All ReplyOnTheFly 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.