meta_organic_get_ig_insightsInstagram organic account insights (reach/views/interactions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| page_id | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| ad_account | No | ||
| ig_user_id | No | ||
| user_email | No | ||
| range_preset | No | ||
| activity_only | No | ||
| campaign_name | No | ||
| property_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the metric scope returned (reach/views/interactions), which is modestly useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or date-range behavior for what is clearly a range-based query.
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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the terseness here is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness given the tool's 17-parameter surface.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 17-param, zero-required query tool the description provides no parameter guidance, no usage conditions, and no differentiation from closely related organic-insight siblings. Substantial gaps remain.
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?
Seventeen parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Fields like range_preset, activity_only, sort_by, ig_user_id, ad_account, and campaign_name are entirely undocumented anywhere, leaving an agent no basis for supplying or omitting them.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Instagram organic account insights') and names the metric families (reach/views/interactions), which separates it from media-level or page-level siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with meta_organic_get_ig_media or meta_organic_get_page_insights, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite a crowded sibling set (ig_media, page_insights, page_posts, meta_insights_get_overview). An agent must guess which organic Instagram tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.