Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail about what state is returned, but it does not go beyond that with behavioral context such as whether connection status is live or cached, or whether any setup is required. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the four main output components in a natural sequence. Every element earns its place, with no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the caller gets back. It does this by listing the major result categories: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool counts. It could be slightly more explicit about how connection status is represented, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is nearly complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% and the input schema is empty; the description correctly focuses on the return value instead. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it sharply from siblings like show_version or instagram_actions_list_accounts, which serve narrower purposes.
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?
The intended use is implied by the description: call this tool when you need an overview of the toolkit state. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like show_version, marketplace, or instagram_actions_list_accounts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is serviceable but left to inference.
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.
Several tools pair up with near-identical purposes (instagram_actions_list_comments vs instagram_get_ig_media_comments, instagram_create_carousel_container vs instagram_post_ig_user_media, instagram_actions_send_message vs instagram_send_text_message), so an agent can easily select the wrong one. The detailed descriptions clarify the differences, but the overlapping unofficial-actions and official-API surfaces still create ambiguity.
Most Instagram tools follow snake_case verb_noun naming with an instagram_ prefix, but the prefix is applied inconsistently (generic tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace lack it) and verbs vary among actions_*, get_*, list_all_*, post_*, send_*, and create_*. The names are readable but do not form one predictable pattern.
33 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the set includes several non-Instagram platform tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that belong to the MCP platform rather than an Instagram domain. The Instagram-specific surface is broad enough that splitting or trimming would improve coherence.
The server covers a broad range of Instagram workflows: auth, follow/unfollow, likes, comments, stories, messaging, media publishing, and insights. However, obvious lifecycle counterparts are missing—no unlike, no delete/update media, and no delete/unlike comments—so the surface has notable gaps.