instagram-mcp

get_pending_threads

Retrieve all pending Instagram message request threads and their count to review and manage unapproved DM requests.

Instructions

Get pending message request threads.

Returns: Object with 'threads' array of pending threads and 'count'.

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": "get_pending_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'Get' reasonably conveys a non-mutating fetch and there are zero parameters, so little behavior needs disclosing. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions, or rate limits, which keeps it at minimally viable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The 'Returns' block is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return-value description is unnecessary duplication rather than a gap. For a zero-param read tool the definition is close to sufficient, but the absence of any guidance on how it differs from sibling thread listings leaves a real hole.

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 no parameters, so there is no argument semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scoping qualifier ('pending message request threads'), which implicitly separates it from list_threads/get_thread. However, it never names a sibling or explains what makes a thread 'pending', so the agent must infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance despite five closely related thread tools (list_threads, get_thread, search_threads, hide_thread). The scope word 'pending' is the only hint about selection.

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