Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
facebook-mcp

facebook-mcp

by IvanBBaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Edit own comment

facebook_edit_comment
Idempotent

Replace the text of a comment your Page wrote, such as fixing a typo in a reply. Preview the change first, then apply it; comments written by anyone else are refused.

Instructions

Replace the text of a comment the Page itself wrote — e.g. fix a typo in a reply. Comments by anyone else are refused before any write. The plan-mode preview shows the current and the new text, so the old text can be restored with a second edit; a comment edited by someone else after the preview makes the plan diverge. Needs a PAGE token with pages_manage_engagement.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNoSet true to actually perform the write. Omitted or false ⇒ the server decides from its configured write mode: usually a dry run that returns a plan preview and changes nothing, but a server (or package) configured apply-first performs the write. To be certain nothing happens, read the result: a dry run always reports the plan and says the write was NOT performed.
messageYesThe text to send. Written by you — Facebook rejects an empty message.
plan_idNoThe `planId` returned by a preceding dry-run preview of this same tool. Required for irreversible and spend-tier writes; plans expire a few minutes after they are created.
profileNoPage profile key (e.g. "brand-a") or a raw Page ID. Omitted ⇒ the default Page (FB_PAGE_ID).
comment_idYesComment ID, e.g. "123456_789012" as returned by facebook_list_comments. Not a post ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile; the description adds authorization (PAGE token with pages_manage_engagement), a permission gate that rejects non-Page comments before any write, preview behavior, and how to revert via a second edit. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and its restriction, then preview and auth. Each sentence carries information, though the plan-divergence clause is dense enough to slow a quick read.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: required permission, refusal semantics, dry-run/plan mechanics, and reversibility. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the plan-mode preview shows current vs new text and is tied to the apply/plan_id flow, and divergence after a concurrent edit is explained. It still doesn't clarify the profile parameter's role.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Replace the text') plus resource ('a comment the Page itself wrote') and adds a hard scope restriction that separates it from facebook_update_post, facebook_delete_comment, and facebook_comment_on_post. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'fix a typo in a reply' example and the rule that 'comments by anyone else are refused before any write' give clear positive and negative conditions. It never names a sibling alternative (e.g. delete or reply instead), which keeps it below a 5.

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