instagram-mcp-server

Get Comment

instagram_get_comment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single Instagram comment by ID to view its text, author, like count, and hidden status in markdown or JSON format.

Instructions

Get one comment by ID, including its text, author, like count and hidden state.

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>"
    },
    "name": "instagram_get_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for readable text, 'json' for structured data	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior for a missing/invalid ID.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and payload are stated in that order and nothing is repeated.

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 single-resource read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient — and with no output schema, enumerating returned fields is exactly the right addition. It is only slightly thin on error and permission context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with comment_id and the response_format enum both documented inline. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-provenance detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one comment by ID') and even enumerates the returned fields (text, author, like count, hidden state). The 'one comment by ID' phrasing implicitly separates it from batch siblings like instagram_list_comments, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch this when you already hold a comment ID. There is no statement of when to prefer it over instagram_list_comments or instagram_get_mentioned_comment, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server