Search Instagram accounts and hashtags. (1 credit)
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": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "instagram_search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search text. |
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=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the '(1 credit)' cost disclosure, which is not present anywhere in the structured fields. It says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how accounts and hashtags are mixed in the response.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with the cost signal. Nothing is wasted, though the credit note would read better as a separate, clearly separated sentence.
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?
For a search tool whose output format is undefined (no output schema), the description should indicate what comes back — profiles, hashtags, or a mixed list — and whether results are limited. With no output schema and no return-value information, an agent cannot anticipate what it will receive. The cost note is the only substantial detail.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Search text' — notably it does not say whether '@handles', '#hashtags', or plain keywords are expected, which is the one detail that would have earned a higher score.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('Search Instagram accounts and hashtags'), which is better than a tautology. However, siblings instagram_search_profiles, instagram_search_hashtag, and instagram_search_posts cover the same ground, and the description never clarifies whether this returns combined results or how it differs from those specialized tools.
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 and no mention of the three more specific search siblings. An agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over instagram_search_profiles or instagram_search_hashtag.
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.