insta-pilot

ig_comment_reply

Reply to a specific Instagram comment from a configured account, with dry-run preview to verify the response before posting.

Instructions

Responde a un comentario.

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_comment_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Usuario de Instagram configurado (por defecto la cuenta activa)
`dry_run`	No	true = solo muestra lo que haría, sin ejecutar
`message`	Yes
`comment_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a reply (a non-destructive write). The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention that a reply is publicly visible, no permission or rate-limit context, and no explanation of the dry_run preview behavior that the schema exposes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but for a 4-parameter mutation on a social platform it is too terse to be genuinely concise rather than under-specified. Compare to the LOW calibration where a one-word description scored 2; this is a full clause, so 3.

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 tool with no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description should say what a successful reply produces and whether it is publicly posted. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at visible side effects.

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 50% (account and dry_run are documented, message and comment_id are not). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half; message has a maxLength constraint of 2200 but the description never clarifies what the reply text is or its limits.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Responde a un comentario' = reply to a comment), which is enough to distinguish it from the hide/delete/toggle comment siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or state scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus ig_comments, ig_comment_hide, or ig_comment_delete, and no prerequisites (e.g. the comment must exist, the account must own the media) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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