instagram_profileCheck any Instagram account's public profile to verify existence and get bio, links, follower counts, verification, and business category.
Public profile of an Instagram account: bio, links, follower/following/post counts, verification and business category. Use this first to check an account exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Instagram username without @, e.g. nasa |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context about what profile fields are included and the existence-check use case, but does not mention behavior for private/nonexistent accounts or any response quirks.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and returned fields; the second gives a concrete usage instruction.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only profile lookup, the description is nearly complete: it lists the key returned fields and suggests when to call it. It could additionally mention error behavior for missing/private accounts, but the essential information is present.
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 100% and fully documents the username format and example. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but no more.
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?
States a specific resource (Instagram account) and enumerates the returned content: bio, links, follower/following/post counts, verification, and business category. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like instagram_posts and instagram_contact.
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?
Explicitly says to use this tool first to check whether an account exists, which is a clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.