Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nilyo

by com.nilyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Facebook / Messenger: List friend requests

facebook_list_friend_requests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List received friend requests by cursor, or the 20 most recent sent requests (no sent cursor). Facebook request.id is the other person's numeric ID; reuse the returned request.id.

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": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "facebook_list_friend_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes
cursorNoOpaque next_cursor from the previous page of this same account, identity and resource. No offset pagination.
account_idNoOwned Facebook unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts. Not a Facebook person or Page ID. Required when several Facebook accounts exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: received requests are cursor-paginated, sent requests return at most 20 and lack a sent cursor, and request.id identifies the other person and can be reused.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. The mode distinction and pagination caveat are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key call semantics: required type selection, cursor behavior, the sent-request limit, and request.id meaning. It could say more about response shape, but the essential invocation guidance is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the schema itself documents cursor and account_id well. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral difference between type=sent and type=received, including the absence of a sent cursor and the downstream use of request.id.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (list friend requests) and clearly separates the two modes: received requests via cursor and sent requests limited to the 20 most recent. It also clarifies the meaning of request.id, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools such as facebook_list_friends.

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 description gives clear mode-selection context: received requests use a cursor, while sent requests are capped at 20 and have no sent cursor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the usage conditions are otherwise clear.

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

All Nilyo toolsInspect
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