Iris

update_responder_comment_trigger

Destructive

update a comment trigger's keyword, message, media_id, or enabled state. give at least one field besides id. someone else's trigger, or an id that isn't a comment trigger on this account, is a 404. requires write scope.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_responder_comment_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	comment trigger ID
`enabled`	No	whether the trigger is active
`keyword`	No	matched as a whole word or phrase in the comment, case-insensitive (1-50 characters)
`message`	No	the DM sent to the commenter, before the automated notice (1-900 characters, and at most 700 bytes)
`media_id`	No	the numeric instagram media id to limit the trigger to one post (5-40 digits; get it from list_responder_posts); null matches every post

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds real operational context: write scope is required, and a non-owned or non-comment-trigger id produces a 404. It does not state what the response looks like or whether the mutation is reversible, but the destructive annotation already flags risk.

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 operation and affected fields, followed by the validation rule and the failure/auth conditions. No redundant wording; each clause contributes distinct information.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the agent gets the field list, the minimum-payload rule, the auth requirement, and the 404 conditions — enough to call it correctly. Return-value behavior is left unspecified, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so all five parameters (id, enabled, keyword, message, media_id with its null semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the field names, adding no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond structured data — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb plus resource ('update a comment trigger') and enumerates exactly which fields can change (keyword, message, media_id, enabled). The update verb cleanly separates it from create/delete/list responder sibling tools without needing to name them.

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?

'give at least one field besides id' communicates the partial-update contract, and the 404 clause tells the agent which ids are valid targets. It stops short of routing to alternatives (e.g. create_responder_comment_trigger for new triggers, delete for removal), so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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

All Iris 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?