Check your monthly API credit usage and remaining free credits for Instagram data requests.
Your usage this month. Free (0 credits).
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": "instagram_usage"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add useful non-obvious context – that the call is free (0 credits) – but it says nothing about what the response contains (credits remaining, request counts, period).
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?
Two short fragments with no filler, and the cost information is stated up front. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
With no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema and a light annotation set, a no-arg read tool does not demand much. Still, the description never defines what 'usage' measures or what the caller learns, leaving the core purpose underspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the 4 baseline applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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 states a resource ('your usage this month') but no verb and no clear scope – it is ambiguous whether this reports API credits, rate-limit consumption, or account activity. It is distinguishable from the content-oriented siblings like instagram_followers or instagram_posts only by the word 'usage', not by any stated operation.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the 25 sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. The credit note implies a reason to check it, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.