Retrieves posts published on a Facebook Page for content analysis and review.
Retrieves posts published on the Facebook Page
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_page_posts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no information about behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it returns all posts or only a subset. This is a critical gap for an API tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence of seven words. While it is front-loaded and without waste, it is under-specified and fails to provide necessary detail for effective use.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial details like return format, pagination, or any filtering capabilities, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (all zero). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but no meaning is needed.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('posts published on the Facebook Page'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with deleting, commenting, or filtering posts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Even though it's the only retrieval tool among siblings, the description does not explicitly state its purpose or provide context for when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.