Instagram MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) and specifies default/maximum values for n_comments, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid URLs. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently conveys essential information. The Japanese purpose statement is concise, and parameter explanations are direct. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('投稿情報の文字列' - post information string) and could be more specific about the output format.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (though not shown in context), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (one optional), no annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage differentiation and comprehensive behavioral context that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what 'post_url' should contain (Instagram post URL with example) and clarifies 'n_comments' meaning (number of comments to retrieve) with default and maximum values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Instagram投稿の詳細情報とコメントを取得します' (Get detailed information and comments for an Instagram post). It specifies both the resource (Instagram post) and the action (get details and comments). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'instagram_user_posts' or 'instagram_user_info' that might also retrieve post-related information.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools available (instagram_user_posts, instagram_search, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific post-focused tool is appropriate versus user-focused or search-focused tools. The only usage context implied is needing post details and comments.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.