facebook_profile_events_listList events hosted by a Facebook profile or Page. Accepts a profile or page URL. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public Facebook profile or page URL. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that it returns a list and mentions pagination via cursor, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It provides useful behavioral detail without contradicting 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?
Three concise sentences each serve a distinct purpose: the action, the input, and pagination. No fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 simple read-only list tool with two documented parameters, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, what it accepts, and how to handle pagination. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement that it returns a list.
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%, so both parameters have full descriptions. The description's mention of 'profile or page URL' and 'use cursor when paginated' adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (list) and resource (events) scoped to a Facebook profile or Page, clearly distinguishing it from sibling list/search tools. It identifies the input type (profile or page URL) and is unambiguous.
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?
It clearly implies the tool is for retrieving events for a specific profile/page via URL, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like facebook_events_list or search tools, so it lacks exclusions.
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.