Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Meta Ads MCP

Meta Ads MCP

by AbnerZx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

pages_reply_to_comment

Reply to a comment on a Facebook page with a custom message using its comment ID.

Instructions

Reply to a comment.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "pages_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
messageYes
comment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely states the action. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, the meaning of the 'confirm' parameter, or any error/response behavior, leaving the agent uninformed about crucial operational traits.

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 description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words, achieving maximum front-loading. It is appropriately terse for a simple action, though it borders on under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple, but critical context is missing: no distinction from Instagram's reply tool, no explanation of the 'confirm' parameter, and no mention of permissions or expected output. The presence of sibling tools like ig_reply_to_comment and pages_hide_comment highlights the need for more contextual detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the three parameters. The 'confirm' boolean is especially ambiguous, with no explanation of its purpose or effect, forcing the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the core action ('Reply to a comment') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ig_reply_to_comment or explicitly mention that it applies to Facebook Pages, relying on the tool name for context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_reply_to_comment or pages_hide_comment. There are no preconditions, platform distinctions, or any contextual cues beyond the description itself.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools