RubiConnect

trigger_flow

Starts/dispatches an existing conversation flow for a specific recipient phone number (E.164 format, e.g. +447700900123), optionally passing initial {{variable}} context.

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": {
      "flowIdentifier": "<flowIdentifier>",
      "recipient": "<recipient>"
    },
    "name": "trigger_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`isTest`	No	Optional test flag for RBM test devices (default false).
`agentId`	No	Agent ID or display name. Defaults to the active agent in context.
`recipient`	Yes	Recipient phone number in E.164 format (e.g. '+447700900123').
`flowIdentifier`	Yes	Name or ID of the flow to start.
`initialVariables`	No	Optional key-value variables injected into flow context (e.g. { "first_name": "Alex" }).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not say the call causes outbound messages to a real recipient, whether dispatch is idempotent, what happens if the flow is inactive or the number is not a test device, or what is returned. It only discloses the E.164 requirement and that variables can be injected.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the recipient format and variable injection kept as trailing qualifiers. No filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key unknowns: side effects on real recipients, behavior of isTest, and whether it returns a dispatch/execution identifier. The schema covers the inputs adequately, but the call's consequences are underspecified.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces recipient format and the {{variable}} context semantics for initialVariables, which is mildly additive, but says nothing new about isTest, agentId, or how variable keys map into the flow.

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 pair (starts/dispatches) and resource (an existing conversation flow) plus the target (a recipient phone number), which separates it from create_flow, clone_flow and get_flow_detail. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the word 'existing'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to pick this over alternatives such as send_message (which also delivers content to a recipient) or create_flow. The description is purely descriptive; the agent must infer from sibling names alone which route to take.

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

All RubiConnect 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.

Resources

Need Help?