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 write operation with side effects, mention required permissions (e.g., content publishing approval), rate limits, or what happens if the media_id is invalid.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, earning its place without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, simple action) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, lacking annotations and an output schema, it misses opportunity to clarify the return value or confirm success indicators.

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 already fully documents both parameters ('Media ID to comment on', 'Comment text'). The description aligns with these ('media post', 'comment') but adds no additional semantic context such as ID format, message length limits, or content restrictions.

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 specific verb ('Post') and resource ('comment') and clarifies scope with 'top-level' and 'media post'. The term 'top-level' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'ig_reply_to_comment', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 phrase 'top-level comment' implies this is for commenting directly on media rather than replying to existing comments (which would use ig_reply_to_comment). However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements, prerequisites (e.g., needing the media_id first), or named alternatives.

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