flayr

Update an offer

offers_update

Idempotent

[writes flayr data · write scope] Edits an offer's fields or status; "confirmed" makes it usable for hooks and CTAs. Confirm changes with the person first. Free. Needs the Pro plan or higher. (Wraps PATCH /api/v2/hook-studio/offers.)

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>"
    },
    "name": "offers_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`pains`	No
`proof`	No
`status`	No
`brandId`	No	A brand id from GET /api/v2/brands. Required for an account-wide key; a brand-bound key may omit it.
`summary`	No
`audience`	No
`currency`	No
`outcomes`	No
`priceRef`	No
`proofUrl`	No
`priceAmount`	No
`priceSource`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations' mutation and idempotency signals, it discloses the required write scope, Pro-plan prerequisite, cost, consent expectation, PATCH endpoint, and the effect of confirmed status. It does not clarify partial-update behavior, what retiring an offer does, or relevant failure modes.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the operation, then supplies the important status effect, consent requirement, cost, plan requirement, and endpoint. There is essentially no filler, despite the dense formatting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The operational metadata is helpful, but it is not complete enough for a 14-parameter update tool with minimal schema documentation and no output schema. Correct invocation still requires guessing field formats, pricing semantics, update behavior for omitted fields, and how this offer type differs from sibling offer tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With only 7% schema description coverage across 14 parameters, the description needed to compensate substantially. It adds meaning only for status through the confirmed-status behavior, leaving fields such as pains, proof, outcomes, priceRef, priceSource, and the relationships among pricing fields undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: it edits an offer's fields or status, and explains the downstream significance of confirming an offer. It does not distinguish this tool from potentially confusable siblings such as ads_offer_update or offers_capture.

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 provides useful workflow context: use confirmation to make an offer available for hooks and CTAs, and confirm changes with the person first. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use offers_capture, offers_list, or ads_offer_update instead.

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?