meta-mcp

Get one Facebook Post

post_get

Retrieve a specific Facebook post by ID using a Page Access Token. Provide post_id (format: pageid_postid) and via_page_id to access post data.

Instructions

GET /{post_id}. Post id format is usually {page_id}_{post_id}. Use a Page Access Token via via_page_id (extracted from the post id prefix).

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>",
      "via_page_id": "<via_page_id>"
    },
    "name": "post_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`post_id`	Yes
`via_page_id`	Yes
`fields`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation via GET, but does not disclose idempotency, potential rate limiting, or any security considerations beyond token usage. It is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the HTTP method and endpoint, the second explains the ID format and authentication. It is efficient, though could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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 3-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers identification and authentication. However, it omits the optional 'fields' parameter entirely and does not describe the response format. Given the simplicity, it is partially complete but leaves gaps.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the post_id format (composed of page_id and post_id) and the via_page_id as the token source. The optional 'fields' parameter is not described, but the two required parameters are well explained.

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 clearly states 'GET /{post_id}' and explains the ID format, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle ads, pages, or other resources. It specifies exactly what resource is retrieved: a single Facebook post.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context on when to use this tool (to get a single post) and explains the post ID format and token requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like page_posts for listing.

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