instagram-mcp

get_messages

Retrieve direct messages from a specified conversation. Provide the conversation ID to access message history.

Instructions

Read messages in a DM conversation. REQUIRES Meta App Review (instagram_manage_messages).

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": {
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`account`	No
`conversation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the critical Meta App Review permission requirement and implies a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a necessary access requirement without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has only three parameters and an output schema, but the description leaves key gaps: parameter semantics, how to obtain conversation_id, and when to choose this over list_conversations. It is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and 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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. conversation_id, limit, and account are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their meaning and expected formats.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads messages in a DM conversation, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like list_conversations and send_message, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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 list_conversations or send_message. The Meta App Review requirement is a prerequisite but does not help an agent decide between sibling tools.

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