instagram-mcp

export_result

Export stored Instagram analytics results to CSV or JSON by providing a result ID.

Instructions

Export a stored result by result_id to CSV or JSON.

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": {
      "result_id": "<result_id>",
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "export_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result_id`	Yes
`format`	Yes
`filename_hint`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Export' without explaining whether this triggers a download, file generation, or any side effects. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or what happens to the original result.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, very concise. However, it omits important details for a tool with 3 parameters, and brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is not optimally informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the presence of 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema exists but its content is unknown, and sibling tools like read_result, the description is incomplete. It fails to guide the agent on acceptable parameter values, expected output format, or when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description should compensate. It only mentions 'by result_id' and 'to CSV or JSON', adding minimal meaning. It does not specify valid values for the format parameter (e.g., 'csv' or 'json') or clarify the filename_hint purpose.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool exports a stored result by result_id to CSV or JSON. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_result.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_result or list_results. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios or mention any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server