instagram_taggedGet posts an account is tagged in. Public posts by other accounts that tag this account.
Cost: 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page of the same request. | |
| user_id | No | Numeric Instagram user id. Pass this or username. | |
| username | No | Instagram handle, with or without @. A profile URL also works. Pass this or user_id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-annotation context: results are limited to public posts by other accounts, and each call costs 1 credit — a real behavioral constraint.
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?
Three short lines, zero filler, purpose front-loaded and the cost constraint isolated for easy scanning.
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?
No output schema, so the description should carry the return-shape burden, which it partially does by defining what a 'tagged' post is. Pagination is handled by the schema's cursor field, but auth requirements are never mentioned.
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%, so user_id/username/cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (e.g., that user_id and username are interchangeable alternatives), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get posts an account is tagged in') and clarifies the semantics as 'Public posts by other accounts that tag this account.' This implicitly distinguishes it from instagram_posts (the account's own posts), but it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the right tool versus instagram_posts, instagram_media, or instagram_comment_replies.
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.