instagram-mcp

Instagram token status

ig_token_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the configured Instagram access token to see its account, source, and expiry, and confirm whether write actions are enabled.

Instructions

Checks the configured access token: which account it belongs to, where it comes from (env or refreshed cache), and its expiry when known. Also reports whether write actions are enabled.

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_token_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context beyond that: it discloses the specific facts returned (account identity, token origin, expiry 'when known') and the write-enablement flag, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the secondary reporting detail follows. Every clause adds information an agent can act on.

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, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so reasonably well by listing the four reported facts. It stops short of any return format, field names, or behavior when no token is configured, leaving a minor gap for a zero-param status tool.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level explanation is needed or missing.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('the configured access token') and enumerates what is reported: owning account, source (env vs refreshed cache), and expiry. It is naturally distinguishable from the mutating sibling ig_refresh_token, though it never names that sibling, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/introspection call to run before write operations or when expiry is a concern. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to ig_refresh_token as the action to take when the status is bad.

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