list_pagesRetrieve the Facebook Pages this server can manage, including each page's ID and name, to identify available pages for publishing, moderation, or analytics.
List the Facebook Pages this server can manage (id and name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only addition is the permission scope ('this server can manage'), which usefully warns the result may be a subset of all pages, but pagination, ordering and failure behavior (e.g. missing token) are unaddressed.
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?
A single sentence with the scope constraint and the return fields front-loaded; nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a zero-argument list tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the one thing the schema cannot: that results are limited to pages the server can manage. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on arguments.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('Facebook Pages') and even names the returned fields (id, name), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the adjacent get_page_info sibling, leaving the list-vs-fetch distinction to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'this server can manage' hints that this is the discovery step before page-scoped calls like list_posts or get_page_info, but the description never states when to use this versus those siblings or that the returned ids are inputs to them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.