get_v1Images labelled for reuse (Creative Commons, public domain), up to max (default 10, at most 200), under response.images: title, type, the image with its width and height, thumbnails, the page it is on and a cached copy. Search Images searches all images. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | How many images to return, 1 to 200. Default: 10 | |
| keyword | Yes | Search keyword. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / max / descriptionPrevious value: -"How many images to return, 1 to 100. Default: 10"New value: +"How many images to return, 1 to 200. Default: 10"Input schema / properties / keyword / descriptionAdded value: +"Search keyword."Input schema / properties / max / descriptionAdded value: +"How many images to return, 1 to 100. Default: 10"Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "keyword"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing model (1 credit per call) and the cap of 200, but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, and error behavior — notable for a billed external API call.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the reuse scope, then limits, then result shape, then billing. Nothing is wasted, though the run-on phrasing around 'the image with its width and height' is slightly cramped.
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 and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, type, dimensions, thumbnails, page, cached copy) and states the credit cost. It is nearly complete for invocation, missing only auth/prerequisite context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and ranges. The description restates the default of 10 and the 200 ceiling but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The title and description state the resource precisely: images labelled for reuse (Creative Commons, public domain), with the cap semantics. It also signals scope contrast by noting that 'Search Images searches all images', implying this tool restricts to reusable ones, though it never names the sibling tool id get_v2, so an agent must infer the mapping.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: if you want only reusable/licensed images, this is the tool; for all images, use the other one. There is no explicit 'use this when/not when' phrasing and no named alternative, so the routing guidance is inferable but not spelled out.
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.