flayr

Approve, fix or drop a campaign review section

decide_campaign_review_section

Destructive

[PUBLISHES to social accounts · publish scope] action "approve" approves the section's pending pieces (or pieceIds) and their held posts GO LIVE at their slots — needs the explicit review scope (admin does not include it); QA-failed pieces are skipped unless overrideQa. "fix" sends the pieces back with a note (required): their posts are taken off the schedule and the section opens a new round; other sections are untouched. "drop" takes the posts off the schedule and drops the pieces. "ready" puts fixed pieces back up for review. fix/drop/ready need review or publish. Agency plan. Confirm with the user first. (Wraps POST /api/v2/campaigns/{id}/review/sections/{sectionId}.)

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>",
      "sectionId": "<sectionId>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "decide_campaign_review_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Campaign id.
`note`	No	Required for fix: what to change. Quoted in the next round.
`action`	Yes
`pieceIds`	No	Only these pieces ("approve selected"). Default: every eligible piece in the section.
`sectionId`	Yes
`overrideQa`	No	Approve pieces that failed QA anyway.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent), it discloses that approve PUBLISHES held posts to social accounts at their slots, that QA-failed pieces are skipped unless overrideQa, that fix pulls posts off the schedule and opens a new round, and that other sections are untouched. It also spells out the exact scope requirements and that admin does not include review scope, which is critical non-obvious behavior.

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?

The publish/scope marker is front-loaded and each clause carries distinct information about an action's side effects. It is one dense run-on paragraph rather than being broken into per-action lines, which slightly hurts scannability for a four-action tool.

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 destructive, multi-mode mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, scope pitfalls, QA gating, and the human-confirmation step. It does not describe what the call returns (e.g., resulting section/round state), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning: the unlabeled action enum values are each defined, note is identified as required for fix, pieceIds is framed as 'approve selected' with a default of every eligible piece, and overrideQa's effect is restated in context. The id and sectionId parameters are left to the schema, which is acceptable since they are self-evident.

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 names the resource (a campaign review section and its pending pieces/held posts) and the four operations (approve/fix/drop/ready) explicitly, so the agent knows exactly what is being acted on. It does not name or compare against sibling tools such as decide_review, decide_approval, or group_campaign_review, so the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5 is not fully met.

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?

Each action value is given a use case: approve to publish pending pieces, fix to send back with a required note, drop to remove, ready to re-submit fixed pieces. It also gives prerequisites (review scope, review-or-publish for fix/drop/ready, agency plan, user confirmation). It stops short of stating when to prefer a different tool entirely for a single post or piece.

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?