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. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't confirm safety, idempotency, expected status values (e.g., 'FINISHED', 'IN_PROGRESS'), polling frequency limits, or error states. This is inadequate for a status-checking tool in an async workflow.

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?

Extremely concise at nine words. The parenthetical '(useful for videos)' earns its place by clarifying scope. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the brevity becomes a liability—every sentence earns its place, but there aren't enough sentences to convey necessary behavioral context.

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?

Insufficient for a tool that's part of a multi-step asynchronous publishing workflow. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what status values are returned, that this tool is designed for polling after publishing media, and typical completion times. Currently agents must guess the return format and workflow integration.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (container_id is described as 'Container ID to check'), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'media container' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about where to obtain this ID or its format beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb (Check) and resource (processing status of a media container), with a helpful parenthetical clarifying it's useful for videos. However, it doesn't explicitly identify this as Instagram-specific (though the tool name does), nor does it distinguish from the sibling threads_get_container_status tool.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites for invocation. Given this is likely part of an async publishing workflow (checking status after ig_publish_video), the description fails to mention when polling is appropriate or how it fits into the publishing sequence.

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