meta-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. While 'pending' hints at a filter state, it omits: pagination behavior (despite cursor parameter), rate limiting, required permissions, or what data structure is returned. The 'Added in December 2025' metadata is irrelevant to behavioral understanding.

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?

Two sentences total. The first is functional and front-loaded. The second ('Added in December 2025') wastes space with version metadata that doesn't aid tool selection or invocation, preventing a higher score.

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?

Lacks output schema and fails to describe return values, fields, or data structure of the invites. For a data retrieval tool, this omission leaves significant gaps in understanding what information will be available for downstream processing.

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 has 100% description coverage with basic descriptions ('Number of results', 'Pagination cursor'). The description adds no parameter-specific context, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema adequately documents the two parameters without need for elaboration.

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 specific action (Get) and resource (pending collaboration invites) with scope (Instagram account). The word 'pending' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tool ig_respond_collaboration_invite, though it doesn't explicitly reference the workflow between them.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites for invocation, or expected workflow (e.g., 'use this before responding to invites').

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