@instantreply/mcp

validate_journey_trigger

Read-only

Dry-run a journey trigger request to catch phone, journey, duplicate, and metadata errors before sending messages or firing triggers.

Instructions

Dry-run a journey trigger request. Use before send_whatsapp_template or trigger_journey to catch phone, journey, duplicate, and metadata errors.

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": {
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "validate_journey_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`phone`	Yes
`metadata`	No
`journey_id`	No
`trigger_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Dry-run' is consistent with that safe-read profile. The description adds value by naming the specific error classes it surfaces (phone, journey, duplicate, metadata), though it says nothing about return format or whether it actually hits the network.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the definition is front-loaded with the purpose before the usage routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so for a validator the description should explain what a successful vs. failed dry-run returns and how errors are surfaced. It only gestures at 'catching errors' without describing the response, leaving a meaningful gap for a validation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The error categories (phone, journey, metadata) loosely map to phone, journey_id, and metadata, but trigger_name is unmentioned and no format/constraint details (uuid format, trigger_name pattern, metadata shape) are given.

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+resource: 'Dry-run a journey trigger request.' It makes clear this is a validation no-op rather than an actual send, distinguishing it from send_whatsapp_template and trigger_journey, which it names explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use before send_whatsapp_template or trigger_journey') and states the goal ('to catch phone, journey, duplicate, and metadata errors'), so the agent knows both the trigger condition and the alternatives it guards.

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