SiteCheck Shop & Social

Reaction, comment and share counts for up to 10 public

social_facebook_likes

Read-only

Reaction, comment and share counts for up to 10 public Facebook post URLs, from Facebook's public Embedded Post plugin: counts as shown (e.g. 1.2K) with a numeric estimate, page or author name, verified badge, publish time (UTC) and attached image. Totals only: who reacted is not available without login. Private, deleted or non-embeddable posts are listed under notFound. Related tools on this server, for a different need: social_facebook_followers_following when you need Facebook Page follower counts from Facebook's public Page; social_facebook_comments when you need comments on a public Facebook post as a logged-out visitor. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "posts": "<posts>"
    },
    "name": "social_facebook_likes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`posts`	Yes	1 to 10 public Facebook post, photo or video URLs, comma separated

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`posts`	No
`results`	No
`notFound`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the data source (public Embedded Post plugin), the count format (abbreviated such as 1.2K plus a numeric estimate), the notFound bucket for private, deleted or non-embeddable posts, and the billing model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failed calls not charged). Pricing and partial-failure handling are exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and source are front-loaded, followed by output shape, limitations, alternatives and pricing in a logical order with no filler. It is a dense single block with some run-on clauses (the price sentence is long), but every sentence carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining return fields, the description covers everything else an agent needs: data provenance, count formatting, failure handling, capability limits, sibling routing and cost. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single posts parameter is fully documented as 1 to 10 comma-separated URLs, so the schema already does the work. The description restates the 10-URL public-post constraint and adds the notFound outcome, but contributes no new input syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb-and-resource statement: reaction, comment and share counts for up to 10 public Facebook post URLs, sourced from the Embedded Post plugin. It also names the exact sibling tools for adjacent needs, so an agent can distinguish it from social_facebook_posts, social_facebook_comments and social_facebook_followers_following without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing rules: use social_facebook_followers_following for Page follower counts and social_facebook_comments for comments as a logged-out visitor. It also states a hard boundary — totals only, reactor identities unavailable without login — which tells the agent when this tool will not satisfy a request.

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

All SiteCheck Shop & Social tools Inspect

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

Need Help?