Retrieve reshare counts for Facebook posts to analyze content distribution and engagement metrics.
Get post reshares
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": "reshares"
}
}| 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get post reshares' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
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 extremely concise at three words ('Get post reshares'), front-loaded with the core action, and has no wasted words. Every element earns its place by clearly stating the purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns data (e.g., reshare lists). It doesn't explain what 'reshares' entails (e.g., users, counts, timestamps) or the return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to handle the output effectively.
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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for missing information.
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 'Get post reshares' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('post reshares'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_reactions' or 'get_post_details', which also operate on posts, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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. With siblings like 'post_reactions' and 'get_post_details' that might overlap in context, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other post-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.