Postkey: Instagram DM Automation and Comment-to-DM

Take a person off the X STOP list

postkey_x_remove_stop

DestructiveIdempotent

Postkey: Takes a person off this profile's STOP list. Use it ONLY when that person themselves asked to hear from the account again, never on your own judgment and never to get a blocked reply through. It needs confirm: true (else refused confirm_required). The removal is recorded in the Activity log. Sends nothing to X and no X send tool exists: act with the customer's own X access (full scope: postkey_x_status).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true: the person themselves asked to hear from the account again.
`contact_id`	Yes	The person's numeric X user id (not the @handle). Postkey keeps only a hash.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	false: refused (isError; code, message, guide_topic, url); no change.
`message`	No	What happened.
`removed`	No	false: the person was not on the list.
`usage_note`	No	Near the month's X allowance: pass on as it is.
`contact_ref`	No	The start of the stored hash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / ok / description

Previous value: -"false: refused (isError true; code, message, guide_topic, url), nothing changed."New value: +"false: refused (isError; code, message, guide_topic, url); no change."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / contact_id / description

Previous value: -"The X user id of the person."New value: +"The person's numeric X user id (not the @handle). Postkey keeps only a hash."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "contact_ref": {
+      "description": "The start of the stored hash.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "What happened.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "false: refused (isError true; code, message, guide_topic, url), nothing changed.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "removed": {
+      "description": "false: the person was not on the list.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "usage_note": {
+      "description": "Near the month's X allowance: pass on as it is.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the confirm_required refusal path, that the removal is recorded in the Activity log, that nothing is sent to X, and that no X send tool exists so the agent must act with the customer's own X access. These are non-obvious behavioral and side-effect facts that annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the mechanics. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct obligation or fact.

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 destructive, consent-gated mutation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the safety precondition, the failure mode, the audit trail, and the absence of any X send capability. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including that contact_id is a numeric X user id and that confirm must be true. The description largely restates this, adding only the 'refused confirm_required' error code, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Takes a person off this profile's STOP list') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling postkey_x_add_stop by naming the opposite direction. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('ONLY when that person themselves asked to hear from the account again') and two explicit when-not cases ('never on your own judgment', 'never to get a blocked reply through'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs for a destructive consent-sensitive action.

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

All Postkey: Instagram DM Automation and Comment-to-DM 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?