instagram-mcp

Hide or unhide a comment

ig_hide_comment

DestructiveIdempotent

Hide an Instagram comment from public view or restore it by setting hide=false. Requires IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true.

Instructions

Hides a comment from the public (or shows it again with hide=false). Requires IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "ig_hide_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hide`	No
`comment_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/idempotent profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds the non-obvious operational gate that IG_ENABLE_WRITES must be true and clarifies the effect is a reversible public visibility toggle rather than removal. It does not explain rate limits or error behavior, but for a two-state toggle this is solid added context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with the inverse case and the prerequisite packed into a parenthetical follow-up. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the action, the inverse action, and the enabling flag. It could note whether hidden comments remain visible to the author or how failures surface, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does explain that hide=false re-shows the comment, adding real meaning beyond the bare boolean. However, comment_id (the only required param) gets no explanation of format or source, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (hide a comment) and clarifies the toggle direction with "shows it again with hide=false", which implicitly separates it from the destructive ig_delete_comment sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so distinction relies on inference rather than direct callout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a real prerequisite (IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true), which is genuinely useful gating context, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over ig_delete_comment or ig_set_comments_enabled. Usage is implied rather than specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.