meta-mcp

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 but fails to deliver. It does not explain pagination mechanics, rate limits, comment ordering (chronological vs. ranked), or whether replies are included. The presence of 'ig_get_replies' as a sibling suggests this tool returns top-level comments only, but the description remains silent on this critical distinction.

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 a single 7-word sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, this brevity becomes a liability rather than a virtue—it sacrifices necessary behavioral context for extreme conciseness.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with pagination capabilities ('after' cursor), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the pagination workflow, distinguish from related comment tools (ig_get_comment, ig_get_replies, ig_get_mentioned_comments), or describe the expected return structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'specific Instagram media post' which aligns with the 'media_id' parameter, but adds no semantic context for 'limit' or 'after' beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., pagination patterns, max limits).

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 core action ('Get') and resource ('comments') scoped to 'a specific Instagram media post.' However, it fails to distinguish from the singular sibling 'ig_get_comment' or clarify whether this retrieves top-level comments only (given 'ig_get_replies' exists separately).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ig_get_comment' (singular) or 'ig_get_replies.' It omits pagination strategy despite having an 'after' cursor parameter, leaving agents to infer usage patterns.

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