meta-social-mcp

ig_reply_to_comment

Reply directly to a specific Instagram comment using its ID and a text message, enabling real-time engagement with your audience.

Instructions

Reply to a comment on an Instagram media item.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "ig_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes
`comment_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a write operation but does not mention authentication requirements, visibility of the reply, irreversibility, or rate limits. It adds little beyond the obvious meaning of 'reply'.

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 description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could have used the available space to add usage or parameter context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks prerequisite context, platform-specific constraints, and any indication of what the response returns, making it barely adequate for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain how to obtain comment_id, what message should contain, or how the two parameters relate to the action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Reply') and resource ('a comment on an Instagram media item'), distinguishing it from siblings like ig_get_comments and fb_reply_to_comment. The platform and action are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_get_comments or fb_reply_to_comment. The description only defines the action, leaving the agent to infer prerequisites like needing a valid comment_id.

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