flayr

Create a share rule

create_share_rule

Destructive

[PUBLISHES to social accounts · publish scope] Creates a rule that reshares (or comments on) every new post of the source accounts. Defaults to needs_approval: each fire waits for approve in act_on_publish_action. Only LinkedIn (native reshare) and X (quote own / retweet) really repost; other platforms get a link share. Confirm with the user first. Needs the publish scope (or admin) on the Agency plan or higher. (Wraps POST /api/v2/automations/reshare-rules.)

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>",
      "sourceAccountIds": "<sourceAccountIds>"
    },
    "name": "create_share_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	`reshare`: share the post to `targets`. `comment`: comment on the post itself through the source account.	reshare
`name`	Yes
`brandId`	No
`enabled`	No
`targets`	No
`approval`	No	`needs_approval` (default): each fire waits for a person (POST …/actions/{id} `approve`). `auto`: runs on its own.	needs_approval
`template`	No	The reshare commentary or comment text. Tokens, resolved only once the URL exists: `{{postUrl}}` (this post, on the comment's platform), `{{postUrl:<platform>}}`, `{{parentPostUrl:<post or draft id>}}` (another flayr post: same platform, else YouTube, else any), `{{youtubeUrl:<post or draft id>}}`.
`sourceLabel`	No	Only posts carrying this label.
`delayMinutes`	No
`sourceAccountIds`	Yes	Fires when a post goes live through any of these connected accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: platform-specific outcomes (only LinkedIn/X truly repost, others get a link share), the default needs_approval flow that waits for approve in act_on_publish_action, the required publish scope/plan tier, and a 'confirm with the user first' caution for a destructive+openWorld operation. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the critical scope tag and verb, then packs scope, defaults, platform caveats and confirmation guidance into two dense sentences with zero filler. The bracketed API-endpoint note is useful but the parentheticals and backticks make it slightly heavy.

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 10-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope requirements, approval defaults, platform limitations, and confirmation expectations — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely. It stops short of documenting the remaining half of the parameters, but the annotations and schema carry the safety profile.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it clarifies the most consequential params: the reshare-vs-comment distinction (kind) and the needs_approval vs auto behavior (approval). The platform caveat about which targets actually repost is directly relevant to the targets parameter. It does not explain delayMinutes, sourceLabel, brandId, or name, but those are largely self-evident or schema-documented.

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 — 'Creates a rule that reshares (or comments on) every new post of the source accounts' — and immediately specifies the scope ('PUBLISHES to social accounts') and trigger condition. This lets an agent distinguish it from create_content, publish, or create_experiment without opening any schema.

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?

Provides clear operating context: confirm with the user first, defaults to needs_approval which routes each fire through act_on_publish_action, and requires the publish scope/admin on Agency plan or higher. It names the downstream approval tool but does not explicitly point to list_share_rules for inspecting existing rules, so the 'when to use vs siblings' coverage is strong but not exhaustive.

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?