Insta MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the schema by stating 'Requires authentication' (auth needs) and 'May require approval for private accounts' (behavioral trait), which are crucial for understanding how the tool operates. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with authentication and conditional behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects like purpose, auth needs, and private account handling. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'userId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Follow an Instagram user') and resource ('by user ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'instagram_like_post' or 'instagram_comment_on_post'. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use it ('Follow an Instagram user') and mentions a key condition ('May require approval for private accounts'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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