Retrieve Instagram stories from your profile with no input parameters required.
Getting stories
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stories"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It merely states 'Getting stories' implying retrieval, but discloses no behavioral traits such as scope, pagination, or side effects.
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?
Extremely brief (two words) but under-specified. While it is front-loaded, it fails to convey useful information and is more a placeholder than a concise description.
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 zero annotations, no output schema, and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is gravely incomplete. It does not help an agent understand what stories are returned or how this tool differs from similar ones.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when parameters are zero. The description adds no parameter meaning, but no additional meaning is needed since there are none.
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?
Description 'Getting stories' is vague and barely expands on the tool name. It does not specify verb+resource clearly, and with siblings like 'story' and 'highlights', it fails to distinguish what this tool uniquely does.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'story', 'highlights', or 'highlight_stories'. The description provides no context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.