meta-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate this is a read-only operation, does not explain pagination behavior despite having 'limit' and 'after' parameters, and omits error conditions (e.g., private accounts, deleted comments) or rate limit considerations.

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 single sentence with no filler. While appropriately front-loaded, it arguably errs on the side of under-specification given the lack of annotations and output schema, though it efficiently communicates the core action.

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?

Inadequate for a pagination-enabled tool with no output schema. The description omits critical operational details such as return value structure, pagination workflow (how to use 'after' from previous responses), and data limits, leaving significant gaps for proper invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (comment_id, limit, after). The description adds no supplemental context about parameter formats or relationships, warranting the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 a specific action (Get) and resource (replies to a specific comment) with clear scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ig_get_comments' (top-level vs replies) or 'ig_reply_to_comment' (read vs write).

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 alternatives like 'ig_get_comments', no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid comment_id from 'ig_get_comments'), and no explanation of pagination workflow using the 'after' cursor.

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