instagram-mcp

Refresh Instagram token

ig_refresh_token

Refresh a long-lived Instagram access token for another 60 days when it is over 24 hours old and unexpired, then save it to IG_TOKEN_CACHE_PATH to persist across restarts.

Instructions

Refreshes the long-lived access token for another 60 days (the token must be at least 24 hours old and not expired). The new token is saved to IG_TOKEN_CACHE_PATH; without it the new token only lives until the server restarts.

Tool call template

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": "ig_refresh_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world operation; the description goes further by disclosing the persistence side effect (new token written to IG_TOKEN_CACHE_PATH) and the consequence of omitting it (token survives only until restart). It stops short of describing error behavior or rate limits on the refresh endpoint.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the effect (60-day extension) leads, the precondition is parenthesized inline, and the persistence caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a zero-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the precondition, and the caching side effect, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. It omits what the call returns or how failures surface, which is the only remaining gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or obscure. The 100% schema coverage is trivial given the empty object schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (refreshes) and resource (long-lived access token) plus the concrete effect (extends it another 60 days). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling ig_token_status, which reports state rather than renewing it.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition for use: the token must be at least 24 hours old and not expired. It does not name ig_token_status as the alternative for merely inspecting token validity, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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