instagram-mcp

search_threads

Find Instagram DM threads by username or thread title, returning matching conversations and a result count.

Instructions

Search threads by username or title.

Args: query: Search query (username or thread title).

Returns: Object with 'query', 'threads' array of matches, and 'count'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, result limits, or pagination for a tool that clearly queries a large dataset.

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?

The prose is tight and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns scaffolding is somewhat wasteful since an output schema already exists, but nothing is sprawling.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials; the return-value explanation is redundant with the schema. What is missing is routing guidance relative to list_threads and any behavioral constraints, leaving it only minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does clarify that the single required "query" param is a username or thread title. That is meaningful added value, but it stops short of matching behavior (exact vs partial, case sensitivity).

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 ("Search") and resource ("threads") plus the matching criteria (username or thread title), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_threads, leaving a small ambiguity about which to pick.

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 guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the sibling list_threads despite it covering an overlapping resource. The description only implies usage through the verb "search".

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