ig_get_profileRetrieve a connected Instagram professional account's profile details, including username, name, bio, followers, follows, and media counts, to review account metrics.
Profile of the connected professional account: username, name, bio, followers, follows and media counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's added value is the field inventory, which tells the agent what data comes back; it says nothing about token requirements, failure modes, or rate limits.
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?
A single fragment that front-loads the resource and lists returned fields with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It could go further by noting that the account is the authenticated one and what happens on missing/invalid tokens, but for a trivial zero-arg read it is largely sufficient.
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 the schema carries no semantics to compensate for and cannot be misunderstood. Baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
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 names a specific resource ('Profile of the connected professional account') and enumerates exactly what it returns (username, name, bio, followers, follows, media counts). It's clear which sibling it is not (media, comments, insights), though it never states a verb like 'retrieve' and relies on the title for that.
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?
The scope qualifier 'connected professional account' implies the usage context — fetching the authenticated account's own profile rather than another user's — which implicitly rules out most siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (valid token) or rate limits, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.