SiteCheck Shop & Social

Facebook people search by name via Facebook's public people

social_facebook_search

Read-only

Facebook people search by name via Facebook's public people directory (facebook.com/public/, logged-out view, up to ~24 results): profile id, rank, name, profile link and profile photo. Only profiles whose owners allow public search appear. From facebook.com via a residential proxy. Related tools on this server, for a different need: social_facebook_comments when you need comments on a public Facebook post as a logged-out visitor; social_facebook_followers_following when you need Facebook Page follower counts from Facebook's public Page. Price: $0.01 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "social_facebook_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Person's name, e.g. John Smith

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the logged-out perspective, a result cap of ~24, the constraint that only owners who permit public search appear, the residential proxy route, and the exact billing model ($0.01 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). That is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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?

The capability, scope, and coverage caveat are front-loaded before the related-tools and pricing sentences, so an agent gets what it needs in the first clause. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the trailing pricing detail is long but not redundant.

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 search tool, the description covers source, result cap, eligibility limitations, and cost, and an output schema already exists so return values need no further explanation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents `name` with an example. The description adds only the phrase "by name" and gives no extra naming-convention or formatting guidance, which is the baseline expectation here.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Facebook people search by name"), the exact underlying source (facebook.com/public/<name>, logged-out view), and the returned fields. It is immediately distinguishable from the other Facebook siblings by its search-by-name scope.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to social_facebook_comments and social_facebook_followers_following "for a different need" and describes what each covers, so alternative selection is clear. It stops short of stating exclusion conditions for this tool itself (e.g. don't use for Page data or post content), but the sibling framing covers most ambiguity.

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?