HikerAPI — Instagram MCP

get_gql_comment_likers_chunk

Read-only

Fetch users who liked a specific Instagram comment, one page per call. Provide comment_id and media_id; use end_cursor to paginate through likers.

Instructions

Get users who liked one comment on an Instagram post, one page per call. Pass comment_id and media_id; paginate with end_cursor from the previous response. Use get_v2_media_likers for likers of the post itself. Live request to Instagram, billed per call. (GET /gql/comment/likers/chunk)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_gql_comment_likers_chunk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`media_id`	No
`comment_id`	No
`end_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2May 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover read-only safety, but the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that this is a live, billed, paginated request ('Live request to Instagram, billed per call'). It does not describe auth requirements or rate limits, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then alternative and cost. Every sentence carries necessary information with no waste.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, pagination, alternative tool, and billing, which is strong for a 3-param tool with no output schema. It could be more complete by addressing the deprecated media_id flag and the optionality of parameters, but the main operational details are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names comment_id, media_id, and end_cursor and explains end_cursor semantics, which is useful. However, it does not flag that media_id is deprecated, nor clarify that both comment_id and media_id are optional in the schema, leaving a gap for such sparse schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get users who liked one comment on an Instagram post') and adds scope ('one page per call'). It also names the sibling it is not ('Use get_v2_media_likers for likers of the post itself'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives pagination guidance ('paginate with end_cursor from the previous response') and explicitly routes post-level likers to get_v2_media_likers. No when-not-to-use exclusions beyond that, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server