Retrieves messages from a specified Instagram conversation thread, with an optional limit, so AI agents can review context before replying or moderating.
Fetch messages within a specific conversation thread on Instagram.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max messages to fetch (default: 10). | |
| conversation_id | Yes | ID of the conversation thread. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing beyond 'fetch': no ordering (newest-first?), no pagination/cursor behavior, no scoping to accounts the token can access, no failure modes. Only the word 'Fetch' hints at read-only semantics.
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?
One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is efficient, though it reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits message ordering and pagination, which an agent needs to page through a long thread correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% – conversation_id and limit (default 10) are both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as where conversation_id comes from or whether limit caps total retrieval.
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 verb (fetch) and resource (messages within a conversation thread) plus the platform (Instagram). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_conversations by scoping to one thread, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read tool for message history inside a thread, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or reference to get_conversations as the way to discover a conversation_id first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.