Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ScrapeCreators MCP Server

ScrapeCreators MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Comment Replies

facebook_comment_replies

Retrieve replies to a Facebook comment using its feedback_id and expansion_token, with cursor pagination and confirm=true for credit-consuming calls.

Instructions

Get the replies to a comment. Potentially consumes paid API credits; requires confirm=true. Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms.

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": {
      "feedback_id": "<feedback_id>",
      "expansion_token": "<expansion_token>"
    },
    "name": "facebook_comment_replies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoThe cursor to paginate to the next page
accountNoNamed private ScrapeCreators account; selects credentials, not a remote account ID.
confirmNoMust be true for the specific approved credit-consuming research call.
feedback_idYesThe *feedback_id* of the comment. Be careful, this is not the comment id. You can get the feedback_id from the /v1/facebook/post/comments endpoint.
expansion_tokenYesThe expansion_token of the comment. You can get the expansion_token from the /v1/facebook/post/comments endpoint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which could easily mislead an agent into thinking this writes to Facebook. The description explicitly resolves that ambiguity ('Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms') and adds credit consumption plus the confirm=true gate. It does not cover rate limits or pagination behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, and each remaining clause carries a distinct operational fact (credit cost, confirm gate, no-publish semantics). Zero filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential call-time requirements (confirmation, credits, side-effect-free nature). It leaves the return shape and pagination-via-cursor behavior implicit, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented, including the subtle feedback_id vs comment id distinction, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the replies to a comment') and the platform is carried by the tool name facebook_comment_replies, distinguishing it from instagram_comment_replies / youtube_comment_replies. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements (facebook_comments), so it is clear but not fully differentiated within the Facebook family.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (confirm=true) and a cost warning (consumes paid API credits), which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to reach for this tool versus facebook_comments, nor that it must be preceded by fetching feedback_id/expansion_token from the comments endpoint (that context lives only in the schema).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools