flayr

List held content as one group per piece

list_approval_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

[read-only] The same held content as list_approvals, grouped by piece: the variants of one draft (or sharing a group:<id> label), with the axes they vary on (theme, hook, audio …), a tally (approved / redo / dropped / open) and each variant's state and slot time. status open (default) / redo / approved / dropped / all. Needs the explicit approve scope. Agency plan. (Wraps GET /api/v2/approval-groups.)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_approval_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brand`	No	"personal" or a brand id (`brandId` is accepted too).
`status`	No		open

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: authorization scope required, plan gating (Agency plan), the underlying endpoint, and a detailed account of what comes back (grouping key including the `group:<id>` label, variation axes, tally buckets, per-variant state and slot time). That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot supply.

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-loaded with the core differentiation, then constraints, then the endpoint in parentheses where it belongs. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the one spot of slack is the parenthetical REST route, which matters only to a subset of readers.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget describing the returned group structure, and it discloses the auth/plan prerequisites an agent needs before calling. Minor gap: nothing about result-set size or pagination behavior for a list tool.

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 50%: `brand` is documented in the schema but never mentioned in the description, while `status` is only restated (its allowed values and 'open (default)' are already in the schema enum and default). The description adds no real meaning beyond the schema for either parameter, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds value.

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 and pins down the exact semantics: held content grouped by piece, with variants, variation axes, per-status tally, and per-variant state/slot time. It explicitly anchors itself against the sibling list_approvals ('the same held content as list_approvals, grouped by piece'), so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

The alternative is named and the differentiator (grouping by piece) is clear, plus prerequisites are given: 'Needs the explicit `approve` scope. Agency plan.' What is missing is an explicit condition sentence such as 'use this when you want one row per piece rather than per variant' — the agent must infer that from 'grouped by 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?