Extract nested comments from Facebook posts using legacy Facebook IDs to analyze discussion threads and engagement patterns.
Get nested comments. You need to use legacy fb id
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "comments"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'legacy fb id' as a requirement, which hints at authentication or input needs, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or what 'nested' entails (e.g., depth levels). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 brief and to the point with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another noting a requirement. There's no unnecessary fluff, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from prerequisites.
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 fetching nested comments and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'nested' means, the return format, or error handling. For a tool with potential depth and data richness, more context is needed to guide 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying a requirement ('legacy fb id'), though it's not formalized in the schema. This compensates slightly for the lack of structured parameters, earning a baseline score above 3.
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 the tool 'Get nested comments' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('nested comments'), but it doesn't specify what resource these comments belong to (e.g., posts, videos) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'comment_by_id' or 'post_reactions'. The mention of 'legacy fb id' adds some specificity but doesn't fully clarify the scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'comment_by_id' or 'post_reactions', nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a Facebook ID. Without context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other comment-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.