facebook_event_getGet a Facebook event by URL or event id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public Facebook event URL. | |
| eventId | No | Facebook event id when you have it instead of a full URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the retrieval mode ('by URL or event id') but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response format, error conditions, or handling of missing/conflicting inputs. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is a moderate addition.
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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The action and key identifiers are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is an exemplar of concise specification.
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?
The tool has two optional parameters but logically requires at least one; the description does not clarify this. It also omits what the tool returns (no output schema) and any caveats about using both or none. For a getter with no output schema, an agent needs more context to call it correctly, leaving significant gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameter descriptions in the schema already convey their meanings. The tool description merely restates 'by URL or event id' without adding any new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it does not compensate beyond the baseline.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Get'), the resource ('Facebook event'), and the two identification methods ('by URL or event id'). It precisely distinguishes what this tool does from other sibling tools that list or search events, making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like facebook_events_search_list or when to prefer url over eventId. The description only states the purpose but offers no contextual direction on selection criteria or required inputs, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.