Instagram Private Profile Viewer: With Instagram Private Profile Viewer API, you can view old.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have distinct purposes: one retrieves a specific user's feed and highlights, the other searches for users. There is no overlap in functionality, though the naming could be clearer to avoid potential confusion.
Both tools share a 'get_v1_' prefix, but the suffixes are inconsistent: 'get_all_user_data' is verbose and redundant, while 'search' is a simple verb. This does not follow a consistent verb-noun pattern, making the names less predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels underdeveloped for a private profile viewer. A typical service of this kind would likely need at least 5-10 tools to cover common operations like fetching profiles, posts, stories, or followers.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for the stated purpose. It only provides feed/highlights retrieval and user search, but misses essential features such as getting a profile's bio, posts, stories, followers, or following lists, which are core to viewing private Instagram profiles.
Get Private User Feed & Highlights Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | No | ||
| includeFeed | No | boolean, default value: true | |
| includeHighlights | No | boolean, default value: false |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only repeats the title and adds billing info. It does not communicate any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication, or what happens with private accounts.
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 brief, which is concise, but it repeats the title and includes a billing note that could be considered low-value. It is front-loaded but not fully structured.
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 simple tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description could be complete, but it lacks guidance on output format, error cases, and privacy considerations (private accounts). It is adequate but minimal.
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 schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (including defaults), giving 67% coverage. The description does not add semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is fairly helpful. The username param is documented.
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 title 'Get Private User Feed & Highlights' and description 'Get Private User Feed & Highlights' clearly state the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_v1_search' beyond naming the resources.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'get_v1_search', nor any exclusions. The only context is the billing note, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Users Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds billing info ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is a useful extra, but does not disclose return format, read-only nature, pagination, or any side effects. The name suggests a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated.
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 very short ('Search Users Billing per call: 1 Credits.'), which makes it concise, but the placement of billing information after the purpose is awkward and potentially confusing. It is not a well-structured sentence, though it is brief and front-loads the core action.
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?
The tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description still omits critical context: whether query is optional (schema says required: 0), what results look like, and how it differs from 'get_v1_get_all_user_data'. For a search tool, providing minimal usage guidance is insufficient.
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 input schema defines a single 'query' string parameter with an example but no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what the query is used for, whether it is a full-text search, exact match, or how to format it. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
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 states 'Search Users', which clearly identifies the verb (search) and resource (users). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_v1_get_all_user_data' by implying search functionality rather than bulk retrieval, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_v1_get_all_user_data'. The description does not mention any filtering capabilities, scope, or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_v1_get_all_user_dataget_v1_searchInstagram: Instagram public data scraper API for search, users, posts, hashtags, locations and more.
Get social media data from Instagram and TikTok: profiles, posts, videos, comments, and more.
Public Instagram profiles and post feeds by handle, with hashtags and mentions parsed.
Public profiles, timelines, reels, highlights, comments and video transcripts.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
