Retrieve Instagram user details by providing their user ID or username. Access profile information, posts, and more.
Getting user info by user ID or username
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": "userinfo"
}
}| 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 present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as output format, authentication needs, or side effects. The contradiction with the schema further reduces transparency.
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 sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified and contains an inconsistency with the schema, which detracts from its effectiveness.
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 the lack of output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not explain what user info is returned or how it differs from 'profile' or 'get', making it impossible for an agent to select correctly.
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 schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (trivially), but the description implies required parameters (user ID or username) that do not exist in the schema. This mismatch misleads the agent about how to invoke the tool.
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 action (getting) and resource (user info) and specifies the retrieval method (by user ID or username). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'profile' or 'get', and the mention of parameters contradicts the empty input schema.
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 provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'profile' or 'get'. There is no context or exclusion mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.