Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable response-level detail: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This goes beyond what annotations provide and sets accurate expectations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds distinct, necessary detail about response states without any filler or repetition of annotation data.
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?
For a parameterless status-check tool, the description fully covers the two possible states and the relevant return values. No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient expectations for an agent to interpret results and proceed. Nothing important is missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to document.
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?
Description states a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'connection status and URLs', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also describes two output states ('authenticated:true' vs 'connect_url'), further clarifying functionality. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like authenticate or toolkit_info, though the resource itself is distinct.
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?
The description implies use for checking connection status and retrieving URLs when credentials are missing. It gives clear behavioral scenarios ('when all providers are connected' vs 'when credentials are missing') but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is sufficient for basic use but leaves tool selection largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools pair up with near-identical purposes (instagram_actions_list_comments vs instagram_get_ig_media_comments, instagram_create_carousel_container vs instagram_post_ig_user_media, instagram_actions_send_message vs instagram_send_text_message), so an agent can easily select the wrong one. The detailed descriptions clarify the differences, but the overlapping unofficial-actions and official-API surfaces still create ambiguity.
Most Instagram tools follow snake_case verb_noun naming with an instagram_ prefix, but the prefix is applied inconsistently (generic tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace lack it) and verbs vary among actions_*, get_*, list_all_*, post_*, send_*, and create_*. The names are readable but do not form one predictable pattern.
33 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the set includes several non-Instagram platform tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that belong to the MCP platform rather than an Instagram domain. The Instagram-specific surface is broad enough that splitting or trimming would improve coherence.
The server covers a broad range of Instagram workflows: auth, follow/unfollow, likes, comments, stories, messaging, media publishing, and insights. However, obvious lifecycle counterparts are missing—no unlike, no delete/update media, and no delete/unlike comments—so the surface has notable gaps.