Retrieve recent Instagram posts for a hashtag and its total post count, with cursor paging. Use it to research hashtag activity and fetch the next page of results.
Get posts for an Instagram hashtag. Recent posts under a hashtag and its total post count. Page with cursor.
Cost: 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Hashtag, with or without #. | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page of the same request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the cost model ("Cost: 1 credit") and the pagination mechanism (cursor-based paging). It does not cover rate limits or result ordering, but it meaningfully extends the annotation surface.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then return payload, then cost. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic fragment structure is slightly rough.
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?
For a two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description states what comes back (recent posts and total post count), how to page, and the credit cost. It leaves ordering and auth unstated, but an agent has enough to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `tag` (with/without #) and `cursor` are already fully documented in the schema. The description's "Page with cursor" loosely echoes the cursor parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get posts for an Instagram hashtag") and further scopes it to recent posts plus total post count. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like instagram_place_posts or instagram_post, though it never names an alternative to route against.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings (instagram_search, instagram_reels_search, instagram_tagged). The only usage-adjacent hint is "Page with cursor," which implicitly tells the agent how to fetch subsequent pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.