ig_hide_commentHide a spam or abusive Instagram comment so only its author can still see it, or unhide it. This reversible action is preferable to deleting the comment.
Hide a comment (e.g. spam or abuse) so only its author still sees it, or unhide it. Reversible; prefer this over deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hide | No | true to hide, false to unhide | |
| comment_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior; the description adds the two facts annotations cannot express — the change is reversible and visibility is scoped to the author only. That is meaningful added context, though it says nothing about permission requirements or whether hiding affects comment counts.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action, then the effect, then the alternative preference. No filler.
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 toggle with no output schema and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description supplies what matters: reversibility, visibility semantics, and the delete-vs-hide choice. Only minor gaps (permissions, effect on comment counts) remain.
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 50%: the `hide` boolean is documented in the schema itself, and the description reinforces the dual mode ('or unhide it'). The required `comment_id` has a regex pattern but no prose explaining ID format or provenance, so coverage remains partial.
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 (hide/unhide) and resource (comment), plus the precise observable effect: 'only its author still sees it.' That effect definition separates it cleanly from ig_delete_comment, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.
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?
Gives a concrete trigger ('e.g. spam or abuse') and routes explicitly away from the destructive alternative with 'prefer this over deleting.' It stops short of stating when unhide specifically is appropriate, but the boolean parameter covers that adequately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.