Fetch users who liked an Instagram post by media ID. Identify engagement and audience interest from post likes.
Get users who liked an Instagram post, by media id. Use get_gql_comment_likers_chunk for likers of a single comment and get_v2_media_comments for commenters. Live request to Instagram, billed per call. (GET /v2/media/likers)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| safe_int | No | Convert all big integers to strings |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / safe_intAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Convert all big integers to strings",
+ "title": "Safe Int"
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it is a live Instagram request billed per call, and it exposes the underlying endpoint. It does not disclose pagination or rate/volume limits, which is the remaining gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences plus a parenthetical endpoint; the core purpose is front-loaded and every clause (scope, alternatives, billing, endpoint) carries distinct information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description still conveys what is returned (users) and the key cost/network characteristics. Missing only return-shape and pagination detail, which is a minor gap for a simple list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: `safe_int` is documented in the schema while `id` is not. The description partially compensates by clarifying that `id` is the media id rather than a user or comment id, but it says nothing about when or why to use `safe_int`.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 an Instagram post') with the identifying key ('by media `id`'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings that also return engagement actors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes adjacent needs to alternatives: `get_gql_comment_likers_chunk` for comment likers and `get_v2_media_comments` for commenters, which implies this tool is for post-level likers. It lacks an explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g. public account, id source), so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.