meta-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify what 'information' is returned (since no output schema exists), whether this requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 brief at 5 words. While no words are wasted, the description is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise—it sacrifices necessary detail (return type, distinguishing features) for brevity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the presence of multiple similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It should explain what hashtag information is returned to help the agent determine if this meets its needs, and clarify the relationship to other hashtag endpoints.

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 (hashtag_id with source hint). The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantics about the ID format, validation rules, or behavior when invalid. Baseline score applies since schema is self-documenting.

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 the basic action (Get hashtag information) and scope (by ID), but 'information' is vague and doesn't specify what data is returned (metadata, statistics, etc.). The 'by ID' qualifier helps distinguish from ig_search_hashtag, but doesn't clarify how this differs from ig_get_hashtag_recent or ig_get_hashtag_top.

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 tool versus the three sibling hashtag tools (ig_search_hashtag, ig_get_hashtag_recent, ig_get_hashtag_top). The schema description mentions the ID comes from ig_search_hashtag, but the main description doesn't explain this workflow or when this specific endpoint is preferred.

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