get_v2Search V2 Group: Image Search. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query. You can use search parameters. e.g. `adele site:youtube.com` e.g. `query -exclude` | |
| hl | No | Language code for search. Default: en | |
| tbs | No | Search filters. | |
| nfpr | No | ||
| safe | No | If you want safe search, set it to `active` | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for next results. | |
| filter | No | ||
| suggestion_query | No | Suggestion query (must be taken from response suggestions). |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions search and billing, but does not describe return formats, pagination, authentication, side effects, or any operational constraints. This is a significant 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the primary function and a cost detail. It is not overly verbose, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no sibling context, yet the description provides no information about return values, pagination, error handling, or how results are presented. It is far from sufficient for an agent to use without external knowledge.
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 description adds zero information about parameters. Although the input schema has descriptions for 6 of 8 parameters (75% coverage), this is not high enough to fully rely on schema alone. The description does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (nfpr, filter) or clarify usage intent.
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 description explicitly states 'Image Search', providing a clear verb and resource. It indicates it is a search tool for images, which is distinct from generic web search, even though no sibling tools are listed for comparison. However, it does not elaborate beyond that.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description only includes a billing note, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.