Search Facebook behavior targeting options by query to find relevant audience segments for ad sets. Returns matching behaviors with a configurable result limit.
Search behavior targeting options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about pagination, result count behavior, rate limits, or required permissions. It only weakly implies a read-only lookup by using 'Search'.
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?
It is a single short sentence and is front-loaded, which is good structurally. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it cannot score above adequate.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should define the query semantics and disambiguate from sibling search tools. It does neither.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load; it does not. Nothing is said about what 'query' should contain (keyword, ID, category?) or what 'limit' governs beyond its default of 25.
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 verb+resource pair ('Search behavior targeting options') does identify the action and subject, which is more than a tautology. But it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as search_interests, search_demographics, and search_geo_locations, so an agent cannot tell from the description which search to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling search_* tools, and no conditions or prerequisites. The description leaves the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.