meta-social-mcp

fb_get_comments

Retrieve comments on a Facebook post by specifying its post ID. Use this tool to read and manage audience responses efficiently.

Instructions

List comments on a Facebook post.

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_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "fb_get_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`post_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether replies are included, or any other behavioral traits an agent might need to know.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It gets straight to the verb and resource while remaining appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter list tool this is minimally usable: the agent can infer it needs a post_id and returns comments. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of details about limit semantics and the exact return shape leaves noticeable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds little parameter meaning. It maps 'post' to the required post_id concept, but the limit parameter is entirely undocumented in the description and the schema only gives it a type and default.

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 ('List') and resource ('comments on a Facebook post'), making the tool's primary function immediately clear. It also disambiguates from sibling tools like ig_get_comments by specifying 'Facebook', and from fb_get_post by indicating comments rather than the post itself.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when a Facebook post's comments are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools such as fb_get_post or fb_reply_to_comment.

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