Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meta-mcp

meta-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ig_reply_to_comment

Reply to a specific Instagram comment by providing the comment ID and reply message. Use this tool to respond directly to individual comments on your posts via the Meta API.

Instructions

Reply to a specific comment.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "ig_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesReply text
comment_idYesComment ID to reply to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the effect of the operation (e.g., public reply, ability to delete). The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at four words, which is efficient and to the point. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the response or side effects. It does not explain what the reply returns or how to handle errors, leaving the agent with gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Both parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The parameter list is simple and self-explanatory.

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 action ('Reply') and the resource ('comment'). It is specific enough to indicate the tool's basic purpose, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'ig_post_comment' or 'ig_get_replies', which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling tool list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools