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 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm idempotency, safety, rate limits, or error conditions. It also fails to characterize the return value beyond the vague term 'details'.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured with zero redundancy and the action verb front-loaded. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, it errs on the side of under-specification rather than optimal information density.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description meets minimum viability but lacks context regarding the output structure (especially since no output schema exists) and does not clarify what constitutes 'details' beyond the fields parameter defaults.

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, documenting both media_id and the fields parameter with its default values. The description adds no supplemental parameter context, but this aligns with the baseline expectation when the 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?

The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Instagram media post'), and the word 'specific' implies single-item retrieval by ID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling ig_get_media_insights (which retrieves analytics vs. basic metadata) or ig_get_tagged_media (which retrieves collections).

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_media_insights for analytics or ig_get_tagged_media for discovery. It also omits prerequisites such as required permissions or valid media_id formats.

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