add_photo_columnAdd the missing Photo column and use it for item images. Same as add_column with name Photo.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "add_photo_column"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sheet_id | No | ||
| sheet_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by identifying the specific column and its purpose for item images, but it does not explain what happens if the Photo column already exists or how repeated calls behave beyond the idempotentHint.
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 two short sentences with no waste. The core action and its equivalence to add_column are front-loaded.
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 is simple, but the description omits parameter guidance entirely, including how to identify the target sheet. For a mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, this leaves a meaningful gap in correct invocation.
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 0%, and the description does not mention sheet_id or sheet_number at all. It also does not clarify whether one or both sheet identifiers are required, despite both parameters being optional in the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: adding the Photo column and using it for item images. It also explicitly distinguishes this specialized tool from the sibling add_column by saying it is the same operation with name Photo, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.
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 clearly positions this tool relative to add_column, implying it should be used when the goal is specifically the Photo column. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or fully spell out the alternative workflow, but the intended usage context is clear.
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.