Instagram MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it supports pagination (via cursor parameter) and returns a string of posts. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a tool with behavioral implications like pagination.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by pagination support, then parameter and return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., clearer separation of sections).

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?

Given no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by Returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, pagination, parameters, and return type, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth) and doesn't fully explain the output format beyond 'string of posts'. For a tool with pagination and data retrieval, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: music_id is explained with an example ('3473785566185564'), and cursor is described as for pagination to get the next page or start from the beginning if empty. This clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles, though it could provide more on format constraints. With 2 parameters, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '指定された音楽IDに関連する投稿を取得します' (retrieves posts related to a specified music ID). It specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (posts related to music ID), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like instagram_user_posts or instagram_user_tagged_posts, which also retrieve posts but with different filters.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination support, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like instagram_search or instagram_user_posts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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