HikerAPI — Instagram MCP

get_v1_highlight_by_url

Read-only

Fetch a single Instagram story highlight by its URL. For /s/ share links, resolve them first with get_v1_share_by_url.

Instructions

Get one Instagram story highlight by its link. For share links that contain /s/, call get_v1_share_by_url first to resolve them. Use get_v2_highlight_by_id when you have the id. Live request to Instagram, billed per call. (GET /v1/highlight/by/url)

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_v1_highlight_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2May 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds two facts not in the structured data: it is a live request to Instagram and it is billed per call, which affects call budgeting. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, so a 4 rather than 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two routing rules, then the billing caveat. No filler and the parenthetical endpoint path is a useful anchor.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the sibling routing plus billing note covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only residual gap is the exact URL format accepted, which the description only partially addresses.

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% and the single 'url' property has no description. The prose implies the argument is a highlight link and adds a format nuance (share links containing /s/ must be resolved first), but it never states the expected URL form or what an invalid/non-highlight URL does. Marginal compensation for a real coverage gap.

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 one Instagram story highlight by its link') and explicitly differentiates itself from the two nearest siblings by URL vs. id vs. share-link resolution. An agent can distinguish it from get_v2_highlight_by_id and get_v1_share_by_url without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing rules: use get_v1_share_by_url first for /s/ share links, and use get_v2_highlight_by_id when the id is known. This is when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance in two clauses.

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

Deploy Server