Instagram MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that only 'users' search type is currently supported, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the search results look like (beyond '文字列' - string). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that efficiently document parameters and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return type. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, which are missing.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, with parameters 'query' and 'search_type' only having titles. The description explains 'query' as '検索キーワード' (search keyword) and 'search_type' as '検索タイプ' with options and a note that only 'users' is currently supported. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., query length).

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: 'Instagramでユーザーやハッシュタグを検索します' (Search for users and hashtags on Instagram). It specifies the verb ('検索します' - search) and resources (users, hashtags, places), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like instagram_user_info or instagram_user_posts. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by mentioning search types ('users', 'hashtags', 'places') and notes that currently only 'users' is supported. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like instagram_user_info or instagram_user_posts, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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