Pexafy Stock Photos

Get the photos the person liked in the grid

get_grid_selected_photos

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the photographs the person liked (hearted) in the Pexafy results grid. Use it when the person refers to that selection rather than asking for new photos — for example “the images I selected”, “the ones I chose”, “my selection”, “the photos I hearted”, “the photos I liked”, “use the ones I picked”, “put my selection in the document”, “download the ones I chose”, or “write the article around my photos”.

The selection is held by the grid and the server, not by the conversation: this tool is how it is read, and search results are not the selection. It takes no arguments and returns every liked photograph with its rank, photo_id, photographer, source library, licence, pixel size, orientation, description, page URL and credit line, and selection_count, the number of them.

To get one of them as an image file, pass its photo_id to get_photo_file_by_photo_id.

rank is the person's order, #1 first: the order the photos were liked in, unless the person rearranged them by dragging in the grid. Where the grid is rendered, that number is drawn on each liked photograph, so it is the number the person sees and names them by (“#2”). The rank of a search result is only its position in that answer and is not drawn on the grid.

An empty selection means nothing is liked in the grid currently on screen; a photograph is liked with the heart on it. A selection expires an hour after its last change, and a new search replaces the grid it belongs to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	What the count means, in words: a whole selection, one that a later search replaced, or an empty one.
`success`	Yes
`selected_photos`	Yes	The photographs they liked, in their order — the order they liked them in, unless they rearranged them in the grid. Each carries its `rank` — #1 first — the `photo_id` to pass on, the photographer, the source, the licence, the pixel size, the description, the page it came from and the credit line.
`selection_count`	Yes	How many photographs they liked; `selected_photos` lists every one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the selection lives on the grid/server rather than in conversation, it expires an hour after its last change, a new search replaces the owning grid, and an empty result means nothing is currently hearted. These are stateful traits the annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly organized into purpose, routing, return contents, rank semantics, and edge cases. It is on the long side — the long enumeration of user phrasings ('the ones I chose', 'my selection', 'use the ones I picked') is somewhat repetitive — but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param, read-only tool with an output schema, the description still covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, the lifetime/expiry rule, the empty-selection case, the rank convention, and the handoff to get_photo_file_by_photo_id. No gaps remain that would cause a mis-invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero arguments, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this ('It takes no arguments') and explains the semantics of the returned `rank` field versus a search result's rank, which is useful context even though rank is an output rather than an input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns the photographs the person liked (hearted) in the Pexafy results grid') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by asserting 'search results are not the selection.' An agent can differentiate it from search_photos/search_photos_by_image without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the person refers to that selection rather than asking for new photos') plus a rich set of trigger phrasings, and names the downstream alternative ('pass its photo_id to get_photo_file_by_photo_id') for the file-retrieval case. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pexafy Stock Photos tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.