facebook-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Who am I

facebook_whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports the identity and permissions behind the configured Facebook token, including validity, expiry, and API versions, to diagnose authentication problems before other calls.

Instructions

Report the identity behind the configured token (type, validity, granted permissions, expiry) plus the server, MCP SDK and pinned Graph API version. Run this first to diagnose auth problems.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`token`	Yes
`server`	Yes
`graphError`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.8.0Oct 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / graphError

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "code": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "fbtraceId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "httpStatus": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "subcode": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "userMessage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "userTitle": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "code",
+    "httpStatus"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / server / properties / adsApiVersion
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / server / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "version",
-  "apiVersion",
-  "sdkVersion"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "version",
+  "apiVersion",
+  "adsApiVersion",
+  "sdkVersion"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / token / properties / expiryUnknown
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / token / properties / unverified
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

First observedv0.7.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it. The description adds real value by naming exactly what is surfaced (validity, granted permissions, expiry, version pins), which tells the agent this is a safe diagnostic probe with no side effects. It stops short of noting whether it makes a live network call, how it behaves on an invalid token, or rate-limit implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the actionable directive. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

A zero-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs only to establish what it inspects and when to reach for it, and this does both. Return-value structure is left to the output schema, which is the correct division of labor.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not introduce confusion by implying any inputs.

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?

Specific verb ('Report') plus a precisely enumerated resource set: token type, validity, granted permissions, expiry, and server/SDK/Graph API versions. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which all operate on Facebook pages, posts, comments, and messages rather than on the credentials themselves.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The final sentence, 'Run this first to diagnose auth problems,' gives an explicit ordering directive and the triggering scenario. Because no sibling covers credential inspection, no alternative needs to be named, and the 'first' framing effectively serves as the when-to-use rule.

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

Deploy Server