meta-mcp

Raw GET to Meta Graph API

graph_get

Perform a raw GET request to any Meta Graph API endpoint when no specialized tool exists. Use for read-only access to Marketing API, Pages, Instagram, or WhatsApp Business data.

Instructions

Escape-hatch: raw GET to any Graph API endpoint. Path must start with '/' and contain only safe characters. If the path starts with /v{X.Y}/ the version is stripped (server uses FB_GRAPH_VERSION). Always GET (read-only). Use only when no specialized tool fits.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "graph_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`params`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses read-only nature (Always GET), path constraints, and version stripping behavior. No annotations provided, so description carries burden well, though could mention error handling or response format.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'Escape-hatch', no wasted words. Each sentence adds meaningful constraint or usage guidance.

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?

Fairly complete given no output schema and many siblings: it defines purpose, constraints, and usage context. Lacks explicit description of return value but raw GET implies raw response.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. For 'path', it adds syntax and constraints (starting with '/', safe characters, version stripping). For 'params', it only describes it as an object with no further detail, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states it is a raw GET to any Graph API endpoint, acting as an escape-hatch. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is a fallback when no specialized tool fits.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use ('use only when no specialized tool fits') and provides constraints on path format (must start with '/', safe characters, version stripping). Implicitly indicates not to use if a specialized tool exists.

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