instagram-mcp

reply_to_comment

Reply directly to any Instagram comment with a message up to 2200 characters. Returns the new comment ID.

Instructions

Reply to a comment. message <= 2200 chars. Returns the new comment id.

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": "reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No
`message`	Yes
`comment_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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a write action and states the return value ('Returns the new comment id'). However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or any other side effects beyond the obvious creation of a reply.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: three short sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, then provides the key constraint and output expectation without unnecessary detail.

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 simple write tool, the description covers the core action, a constraint, and the output. However, the undocumented account parameter and lack of any usage guidance or behavioral context make it incomplete enough to warrant a mid-range score.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It adds meaning for message with the 2200-character limit and implies comment_id, but it fully ignores the optional account parameter. This leaves a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reply to a comment.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_comments, hide_comment, and delete_comment by naming the action the tool performs.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose 'Reply to a comment' implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as hide_comment or delete_comment. It does provide a useful constraint (message <= 2200 chars), but not full usage context.

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