meta_organic_get_ig_mediaRecent Instagram media with engagement and insights.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| status | 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.
Input schema / properties / actionAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Action"
+}Input schema / properties / statusAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Status"
+}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 nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no default time window, no note that 19 filters are optional and silently ignored when unset.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but for a 19-parameter tool this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence cannot carry the needed context.
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?
With 19 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no default or interaction guidance, the definition is not sufficient for correct invocation. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input surface is entirely undocumented.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 19 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Fields like action, status, range_preset, activity_only, ad_account and campaign_name are completely opaque and appear unrelated to organic Instagram media, which is precisely the confusion the description should resolve.
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?
Names a specific resource (Instagram media) and hints at content (engagement and insights), but the verb is implicit and it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as meta_organic_get_page_posts or meta_organic_get_ig_insights. An agent can guess the domain but not the exact boundary.
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 statement of when to use this versus meta_organic_get_ig_insights or meta_organic_get_page_posts, no prerequisites (account/page/IG user resolution), and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.