photoFetch full metadata for a single Unsplash photo by id, including all image URLs (raw, full, regular, small, thumb), EXIF, location, tags, and photographer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Unique photo identifier | |
| urls | No | Photo URLs at different sizes | |
| user | No | Photo author information |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating exactly what metadata is returned (image URLs in multiple sizes, EXIF, location, tags, photographer). It does not contradict annotations.
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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes specific details without superfluous words.
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?
With an output schema present, the return structure is already specified. The description complements it by listing the metadata categories, providing a good overview. It could mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple single-photo fetch this is adequate.
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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the id parameter's format, provenance, or required format. It merely says 'by id', which adds nothing beyond the schema's example and property name. The minimal compensation makes this a weak point.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('full metadata for a single Unsplash photo by id'). It lists the key metadata categories (URLs, EXIF, location, tags, photographer), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like photo_download, photo_random, and photo_statistics.
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 implies the use case: when you have a photo ID and need comprehensive metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous. A brief mention of 'use search_photos first to find IDs' would have earned a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.