Retrieve comments from a specific Facebook post by post ID, returning each comment's ID, message, author, and creation time. Use limit to control results.
Retrieve comments on a specific Facebook post. Returns comment ID, message, author name, and creation time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of comments to return (1–100, default 25) | |
| post_id | Yes | The Facebook post ID to fetch comments for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (comment ID, message, author name, creation time), which is genuinely useful given no output schema, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, pagination beyond the limit param, or whether the call is read-only/rate-limited.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return fields. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. It could be slightly richer on pagination/auth behavior, but nothing essential for calling 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both post_id and limit are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (comments on a specific Facebook post), so an agent can distinguish it from facebook_get_posts and facebook_reply_comment. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it just below a 5.
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?
The stated purpose implies when it applies (fetching comments for a given post), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as facebook_get_posts or how it relates to facebook_reply_comment/hide_comment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.