meta_organic_get_page_insightsFacebook Page organic insights (reach/views/engagement/follows).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| page_id | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| ad_account | No | ||
| ig_user_id | No | ||
| user_email | No | ||
| range_preset | No | ||
| activity_only | No | ||
| campaign_name | No | ||
| property_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Action"
+}Input schema / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Status"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the metric categories and says nothing about date-range defaults, aggregation granularity, whether page_id is required, or what the many ambiguous parameters control.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is undersized for a tool with 19 parameters and no parameter documentation, so conciseness comes at the cost of usability.
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?
An output schema and read-only annotations help with return values and safety, but the description gives no operational context for a complex 19-parameter tool. An agent cannot determine which parameters to supply or how to scope the page, dates, or filters.
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?
All 19 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not map any parameter to meaning. Ambiguous fields such as 'action', 'status', 'range_preset', 'site_url', 'ad_account', 'campaign_name', and 'property_name' are left entirely unexplained.
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?
It states a specific resource (Facebook Page organic insights) and the metric families covered (reach/views/engagement/follows). It implicitly separates itself from IG insights and page posts, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus meta_organic_get_overview, meta_organic_get_page_posts, or meta_organic_get_ig_insights. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Page organic insights'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.