Retrieve an Instagram account's reels, posts, and carousels with likes, comments, and permalinks, ordered newest to oldest. Set a limit or choose a configured account.
Lista publicaciones (reels, posts, carruseles) con likes, comentarios y permalink, de más reciente a más antigua.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| account | No | Usuario de Instagram configurado (por defecto la cuenta activa) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the payload fields (likes, comentarios, permalink) and the sort order, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or how the limit interacts with a large feed.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action, then the enumerated media types and return fields, then the ordering. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the returned fields and ordering, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the 'limit' parameter (min 1, max 1000) whose pagination/boundary behavior is explained nowhere, leaving an agent unsure how to page a large feed.
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?
Schema coverage sits at 50%: 'account' is documented in the schema while 'limit' is not. The description adds no information about either parameter — no mention of whether 'limit' caps a page or the total result set, nor what 'account' resolves to. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lista publicaciones') and enumerates the media types covered (reels, posts, carruseles), so the agent knows this is a media feed listing. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ig_media_get or ig_media_insights, leaving the reader to infer the difference from the word 'Lista'.
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?
Usage is only implied: listing media newest-first is a browsing operation, which hints at when to reach for it over ig_media_get. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and nothing tells the agent how it relates to ig_media_insights or ig_analytics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.