facebook-web-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Share a post (staged)

share_post

Stage sharing a post to your Facebook timeline with an optional message. Receive a preview and confirmation token to approve the share later.

Instructions

Stage a share of a post to your own timeline, optionally with a message. Does NOT share yet — returns a preview and a confirmation_token.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post_url": "<post_url>"
    },
    "name": "share_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	Optional message to add above the shared post
`post_url`	Yes	Permalink of the post to share
`require_confirmation`	No	Must be true. Setting it false is refused unless the server operator has explicitly enabled unconfirmed writes in the environment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the key behavioral trait: no immediate share, returns a preview and confirmation_token. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's staged nature.

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 concise sentences immediately convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. No filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core behavior (staging, not sharing), the optional message, and the return value (preview and confirmation_token). Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema, this is sufficient, although it doesn't explain the confirmation flow in detail.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The tool description provides overall context about the staging flow but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Stage a share' and names the resource 'a post to your own timeline'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_post or post_comment by emphasizing that it does NOT share yet.

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 description clarifies that the tool only stages a share and does not execute it, which implies a two-step flow with confirmation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the agent to understand when to use this tool.

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