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. It mentions what the tool does (get reels) and the return format (string of reel list), but lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it accesses public/private data. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., using bullet points).

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 has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'username' is an Instagram username without '@' and 'count' is the number of reels to fetch with a default of 12. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid ranges for count.

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ユーザーのリール（短尺動画）を取得します' (Get Instagram user reels/short videos). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and resource 'リール' (reels), distinguishing it from siblings like instagram_user_posts or instagram_user_info. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from instagram_user_posts (which might also get videos), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. With siblings like instagram_user_posts and instagram_user_info, there's no mention of when reels are preferred over posts or how this tool differs in context. It only lists parameters without usage context.

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