Find Facebook users by name or other criteria to extract profile data and public information using Facebook Scraper3 API.
Searches people
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": "search_people"
}
}| 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. 'Searches people' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.
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?
While 'Searches people' is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence fails to convey essential details about the tool's purpose or behavior, making it inefficient in communicating value. True conciseness balances brevity with clarity, which this description lacks.
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 tool's apparent complexity (search functionality often involves parameters like query terms, filters, or pagination), the description is woefully incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively or what to expect in return.
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% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (i.e., no parameters). A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema and the schema fully covers the parameter landscape.
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 'Searches people' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being searched (e.g., a database, directory, or platform) or what 'people' means in this context. While it identifies the basic action, it lacks the verb+resource specificity needed to distinguish it 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'search' or 'profiles_details_by_id' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection among available options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.