meta-mcp

Page Insights metrics

page_insights

Retrieve Facebook Page insights for selected metrics (e.g., page_impressions, page_fans) with customizable time period and date range.

Instructions

GET /{page_id}/insights. Requires a Page Access Token (resolved automatically). Pass an array of metric names (e.g. [page_impressions, page_fans, page_post_engagements]). Period default is day; pass since/until as YYYY-MM-DD or unix seconds.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>",
      "metric": "<metric>"
    },
    "name": "page_insights"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes
`metric`	Yes
`period`	No
`since`	No
`until`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions HTTP method and token requirement, but omits details on response structure, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is somewhat incomplete.

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?

The description is concise with no extraneous words. It front-loads the endpoint and token requirement, then quickly covers key parameters. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out return value details and error cases. For a 5-parameter tool, it covers input semantics adequately but misses output expectations, which is a gap for the agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'metric' array, 'period' default, and formats for 'since' and 'until'. It adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types, though 'page_id' is not elaborated beyond the endpoint path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is a GET endpoint for page insights, mentioning metric names and period. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insights' or 'ig_user_insights', which serve similar purposes for different contexts.

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 includes prerequisites (Page Access Token, automatic resolution) and usage details (metric array, period defaults, date formats). But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the name strongly implies Facebook page context.

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