social-research-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'Results are saved to the local timeline database,' which adds context about data persistence and integration. However, it lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, potential legal/ethical considerations for scraping Facebook, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or mutative. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps for a scraping tool.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key behavioral aspect (saving to database). It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage instructions from behavioral notes.

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?

Given the complexity of a scraping tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at integration with the timeline database, but lacks details on output format, error cases, authentication, or legal constraints. For a tool that interacts with an external platform like Facebook, more contextual information would be beneficial to ensure safe and effective use.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (page_urls, search, max_results) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Search by page URL or keyword,' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Scrape posts from Facebook pages' with specific actions (scrape) and resources (posts, Facebook pages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scrape_instagram' by specifying the Facebook platform, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Facebook-related tools (none listed). The mention of 'Search by page URL or keyword' adds useful scope but doesn't fully distinguish from potential alternatives.

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 implies usage context through 'Search by page URL or keyword' and mentions results are saved to 'local timeline database,' which suggests integration with timeline-related siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrape_twitter' or 'timeline_search,' and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions for Facebook scraping.

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