Skip to main content
Glama

captapi

by io.github.CDCStream

facebook_profile_posts

Latest posts and Reels from a Facebook page — listingHits / timings.phase; 60s deadline, failures 0 credits. Costs 2 credits. Empty results and failures are never charged. Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit (default always fresh).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFacebook profile/page URL, @handle, or page name. The URL platform must match this endpoint's platform. Do not pass cross-platform URLs, e.g. YouTube to TikTok, Instagram to Facebook, LinkedIn to X/Twitter, or Pinterest to Rumble.
cacheNoSet true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh.
limitNoMax items to return (default 4, max 4). The logged-out listing hop is ~23–29s typical, hard-capped at 40s. Each hydrate is typically 6–10s (can be ~100ms when listing already carried the post) and is capped at 12s. The next-item fit check uses that 12s cap, not the typical 6–10s, so a call cannot exceed 60s. The loop stops when the next item would miss the 60s deadline and returns what it has (truncatedReason=hydrate-budget | deadline). Asking for 20 cannot return 20 inside that ceiling. Flat 2 credits per call.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses several non-obvious traits: the 2-credit cost, free 24h cache hits, no charge for empty results or failures, and the 60s deadline. This is valuable context beyond the schema. The cryptic 'listingHits / timings.phase' fragment is unexplained, preventing a perfect score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose, but the phrase 'listingHits / timings.phase; 60s deadline, failures 0 credits' is dense, jargon-heavy, and poorly structured. It could convey the same operational facts more clearly, so it does not reach the level of a tightly written 4 or 5.

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 description covers cost, caching, and failure policy, but with no output schema and no sibling differentiation it leaves significant gaps: what fields the response contains, how this endpoint relates to Reels-only or page-details endpoints, and when to prefer it over facebook_profile_reels or facebook_page_details. For an agent choosing among many Facebook tools, this is insufficient.

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 100%, and the schema already documents url, cache, and limit in substantial detail, including timing caps and truncation behavior. The description mostly repeats the cache guidance and does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Latest posts and Reels from a Facebook page.' This accurately states what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like facebook_profile_reels or facebook_page_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 instead of related siblings such as facebook_profile_reels, facebook_profile_events, or facebook_page_details. The cache and credit guidance is operationally useful, but it does not help an agent decide between this tool and its alternatives.

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

All captapi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The platform-prefix convention keeps most of the 178 tools clearly separated, but several clusters are genuinely ambiguous: tiktok_live_info is explicitly described as 'Identical to TikTok Live', instagram_basic_profile and instagram_channel_details both return profile stats, and facebook_profile_posts overlaps with facebook_profile_reels. The generic 'Summarizer' descriptions for facebook_summarize, instagram_summarize, and tiktok_summarize provide no disambiguating detail at all.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant snake_case platform_resource_suffix pattern is followed remarkably consistently across 178 tools (e.g. youtube_channel_videos, tiktok_search_users, reddit_subreddit_posts). Minor deviations exist: the same creator resource is called 'channel' in some tools (tiktok_channel_details, instagram_channel_posts) but 'profile' or 'user' in others (facebook_profile_posts, twitch_user_videos, linnkme_profile); link-in-bio tools mostly use _page but linkme uses _profile; and the video_summarize/video_transcript pair lacks a platform prefix.

Tool Count2/5

At 178 tools this is far beyond what any agent can efficiently navigate in a single flat namespace, and even individual platform subsets exceed reasonable bounds (TikTok alone has ~34 tools, YouTube ~25). The sheer breadth of the multi-platform scope partially justifies the count, but the server would be far more usable split into per-platform servers.

Completeness4/5

The read-only data surface is impressively thorough: nearly every platform has profile + content + search + comments coverage, and TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are covered end-to-end including shops, ads, transcripts, and summaries. Notable gaps are minor: Twitter has no keyword search tool, LinkedIn lacks comments, and Reddit has no user-profile endpoint, but none of these create dead ends for the server's core data-retrieval purpose.

Resources