facebook_eventsSearchSearch public events. Public Facebook events matching a search term. Results are ranked and biased toward where Facebook places the request, so the same query can return a different set on another call. Treat this as discovery, not as an enumerable list. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to search for, e.g. "jazz festival" | |
| cache_max_age | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ranked and location-biased, the same query may return different sets across calls, and each call costs 1 credit. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 short and front-loaded, leading with the core action and following with important behavioral caveats. There is minor redundancy between 'Search public events' and 'Public Facebook events matching a search term,' but no major waste.
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 discovery search tool with no output schema, the description explains non-determinism and credit cost, which are important. However, it does not describe the result shape, pagination behavior, or what fields an agent should expect from returned events.
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?
The schema documents the required query parameter with an example, but cache_max_age is undocumented, leaving schema coverage at 50%. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented cache_max_age parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: search public Facebook events matching a search term. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as facebook_event, facebook_cityEvents, or facebook_profileEvents.
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 useful usage context by saying results are discovery-oriented rather than an enumerable list, implying it should not be used for exhaustive retrieval. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related event tools or what alternatives exist.
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.