Instagram MCP Server

Unfollow User

unfollow_user

Destructive

Unfollow any Instagram user by visiting their profile and clicking the Unfollow button.

Instructions

Unfollow a user.

Navigates to the user's profile and clicks the Unfollow button.

Args: username: Instagram username to unfollow (e.g., "natgeo") ctx: FastMCP context for progress reporting

Returns: Dict with url, status, and optional message.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "unfollow_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context (navigates, clicks button) and return format, but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or authorization requirements beyond what annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections (action, args, returns). Every sentence contributes, though including ctx in Args despite not being in the schema is slightly redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, arguments, and return format. It is adequate given the annotations and output schema, though it could mention prerequisites or error conditions for greater completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the username parameter with an example ('e.g., natgeo'). It also mentions ctx for progress reporting, but this is not in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Unfollow a user' and explains the mechanism (navigates to profile and clicks Unfollow). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like follow_user.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied through the action name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., user must currently be followed). The description does not mention when not to use it.

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