Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Meta Ads MCP

Meta Ads MCP

by AbnerZx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ig_reply_to_comment

Reply directly to an Instagram comment using its unique comment ID. Post your message to engage with your audience from the Meta Ads MCP.

Instructions

Reply to an IG comment.

Tool call template

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "ig_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
messageYes
comment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Reply to an IG comment.' It does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior (despite a confirm parameter), rate limits, or whether it is a read or write operation. The agent is left blind about the tool's behavior beyond the verb.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding context. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, missing important details about usage and parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needs an existing comment), return values, or the confirm flag's purpose. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention message, comment_id, or confirm. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter names, so the agent must guess what each parameter means and how they interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (reply) and the target resource (an IG comment), which distinguishes it from hide/delete/list operations. However, it does not differentiate from pages_reply_to_comment, though 'IG' provides some context. Overall a clear purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pages_reply_to_comment or other comment tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools