Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
was-fb-mcp

was-fb-mcp

by was-member-keramat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

fb_create_post

Create a post on a Facebook Page by providing page ID, message, optional link, and page token. Solves posting directly to Page feed.

Instructions

Create a new post on a Facebook Page feed.

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": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "fb_create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkNoOptional URL link to attach
pageIdYesFacebook Page ID
messageYesPost message text content
pageTokenNoOptional Page Access Token (if posting on behalf of a Page)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.5

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'create a new post' without disclosing authentication requirements (pageToken), rate limits, or post behavior (e.g., visibility, scheduling).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence is concise but too terse; it under-specifies and could benefit from additional critical details without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Very incomplete: no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. Fails to provide authentication context (pageToken), error handling, or relationship to sibling tools.

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%, so description adds no extra meaning. It does not clarify edge cases or relationships between parameters (e.g., link vs. message). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (create) and resource (new post on Facebook Page feed), but does not differentiate from siblings like fb_get_page_feed or fb_reply_comment, which could cause confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 (e.g., creating a post vs. replying or listing). No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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