Get the account's verified portfolio: slug, public URL, published state, and every item with its title, position and whether it is publicly shared. A portfolio is a public page of verified photos (paid plans).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds that portfolios are for verified photos on paid plans, implying a potential requirement/failure mode. It also describes the return content. However, it does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but the annotations already cover the core safety traits.
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 concise and well-structured, with two clear sentences: one stating the action and return fields, and one providing contextual detail about the portfolio's nature. No unnecessary verbosity.
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 description fully explains what the tool returns (slug, public URL, published state, and item details) and adds context about paid plans and verified photos. Even without an output schema, an agent would understand the expected data shape and purpose.
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 no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline is 3, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. This is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the account's verified portfolio and lists the key fields returned (slug, public URL, published state, and portfolio items with title, position, and shared status). This makes the purpose specific and distinct from generic listing tools.
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 does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_verification or list_my_listings. It mentions it's for the account's portfolio, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives. This is a clear gap given the large sibling set.
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.
