hashtag_budgetCheck remaining hashtag searches in the rolling 7-day limit and see which hashtags can be reused for free.
How many of the 30 hashtag searches per rolling 7 days are left, and which hashtags can be repeated for free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Which connected account: @username or Instagram user ID. Omit to use the default account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real domain behavior on top: the exact quota (30 searches), the rolling 7-day window semantics, and the existence of a free-repeat set. It does not say whether the count resets on a fixed or sliding schedule per hashtag, but the added context is substantive.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the quota number, with no filler. Every clause contributes a distinct fact an agent needs.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys both returned facts adequately. It stops short of describing the shape of the response (e.g. how free-repeat hashtags are listed), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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?
There is a single optional 'account' parameter fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the account parameter or which account's budget is reported when it is omitted — a question an agent with multiple connected accounts would legitimately have.
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 names a specific resource (remaining hashtag searches within a 30-per-rolling-7-days allowance) and a second output (hashtags repeatable for free), which is concrete enough to separate it from publish_budget and hashtag_research. It never explicitly names those siblings, though, so an agent must infer the distinction from the wording.
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 implied — check this before spending a search via hashtag_research — but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what to do if the budget is exhausted. No alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.