by_groupPublic uploads in one group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| group_id | Yes | Flickr group id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | Array of photo items from the group pool | |
| title | No | Feed title from Flickr |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "group_id": "34427469@N25",
+ "limit": 20
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Array of photo items from the group pool",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Photo item object",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Feed title from Flickr",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'Public uploads' scope, which is useful context regarding accessibility, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination, ordering, or limit defaults, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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, front-loaded phrase 'Public uploads in one group.' with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and communicates the core purpose efficiently.
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 is adequate for a simple read-only tool given the presence of an output schema and safety annotations, but it lacks usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over 'by_user') and details like pagination or limit behavior. This leaves noticeable gaps in completeness.
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 schema provides a description for group_id ('Flickr group id.') and none for limit. The description does not explain the limit parameter or its default behavior, and with schema coverage at only 50%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter meaning incomplete.
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 'Public uploads in one group' clearly identifies the resource (group uploads) and scope (public, one group), distinguishing it from the sibling 'by_user'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so it's not fully explicit.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'by_user'. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific use cases beyond the implied 'when you need public uploads for a group'.
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.