manychat_send_flowTrigger a specific flow for a subscriber by providing their ManyChat subscriber ID and a flow namespace. Use flow IDs from the list flows tool to start the desired automation.
Trigger a specific flow for a subscriber. Use manychat_list_flows to get flow IDs first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow_ns | Yes | Flow namespace/ID to trigger (from manychat_list_flows) | |
| subscriber_id | Yes | ManyChat subscriber ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the flow-triggering behavior and the prerequisite to list flows first, but does not disclose side effects such as actually delivering content or starting an automation chain. This is adequate but leaves room for more behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated clearly in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two required, fully documented parameters and annotations covering the read/destructive profile, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what action to take and how to obtain the required flow ID. Lacking is any note on return behavior or side effects, but the low complexity and schema coverage make this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both subscriber_id and flow_ns already documented. The description's 'from manychat_list_flows' instruction adds procedural context, but it mostly repeats what the flow_ns parameter description already states, so there is little extra semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action—'Trigger a specific flow for a subscriber'—making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It identifies the flow resource and subscriber target, and the mention of manychat_list_flows helps orient the agent, though it does not explicitly contrast this with the send_text/send_content/send_sequence siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a useful prerequisite: 'Use manychat_list_flows to get flow IDs first.' This implies when this tool is needed (after fetching flow IDs) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the other send_* tools or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.