flayr

Create a comment-to-get trigger (inactive)

create_growth_trigger

[writes flayr data · write scope] Creates a keyword trigger, always INACTIVE: nothing is sent until a person turns it on. DMs work on Instagram and Facebook only; the reply text must not contain a keyword. (Wraps POST /api/v2/growth-triggers.)

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "create_growth_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`link`	No	http(s) URL behind {{link}}.
`name`	Yes
`dmText`	No	Private reply (Instagram and Facebook only; refused on an account of another platform).
`brandId`	No
`postIds`	No	Only comments on these posts; omitted = all posts.
`keywords`	Yes	Case-insensitive. exact = the whole comment; startsWith = its start; contains = anywhere (substring, so "hi" also matches "this").
`maxSends`	No	After this many sends, reply only overCapText.
`priority`	No	Higher is checked first; the first matching trigger wins.
`accountId`	No	A connected account id (GET /api/v2/accounts); omitted = every account of the brand.
`replyText`	No	Public reply. {{name}} = the commenter, {{link}} = `link` with UTM tags. Must not contain a keyword (it would trigger itself).
`campaignKey`	No	utm_campaign for {{link}}, and the campaign column of the logs.
`overCapText`	No
`delaySeconds`	No	Wait before replying; capped at 20 at send time.
`dmVariations`	No
`repeatPolicy`	No		once_per_commenter
`replyVariations`	No	Alternatives picked at random with replyText.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the call writes data, requires `write` scope, always produces an inactive object, enforces platform restrictions on DM text, and that reply text must not contain a keyword to avoid self-triggering. That is meaningful operational context the annotations alone do not convey. It does not describe the response payload or failure modes, keeping it below the top mark.

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 with the most decision-relevant fact (created inactive) front-loaded, followed by platform constraints and the endpoint provenance in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant with the title, and every clause carries information.

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 16-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, safety-relevant constraints, and the inactive-on-creation behavior, which are the highest-risk unknowns. However, it does not describe what is returned (e.g., a trigger id needed for later activation) nor how fields like priority, maxSends, and overCapText interact, leaving the agent to infer lifecycle steps from the schema alone.

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 69%, so the schema already explains most key fields (keywords match semantics, link, replyText, accountId, maxSends, delaySeconds). The description adds little parameter-level detail and repeats the schema's own keyword-exclusion note. Undocumented fields such as name, brandId, overCapText, dmVariations, and repeatPolicy receive no clarification here, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Creates a keyword trigger') and adds the crucial modifier 'always INACTIVE: nothing is sent until a person turns it on,' which separates this from update_growth_trigger or list_growth_triggers. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but an agent can still tell what this tool does versus the read/update/delete growth-trigger siblings.

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?

It gives clear operating context: the trigger is created inactive and must be switched on later, and DM replies are restricted to Instagram and Facebook. It does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and near neighbors such as create_share_rule or update_growth_trigger, so the guidance is strong on constraints but not on alternatives.

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

All flayr 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?