search_photosSearch Unsplash photos by keyword (required); returns paginated results with image URLs, dimensions, photographer info, and alt text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | No | Total number of search results | |
| results | No | Array of photo objects matching search query | |
| total_pages | No | Total number of pages |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "query": "mountain landscape"
- },
- {
- "per_page": 20,
- "query": "urban architecture"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "mountain landscape"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "urban architecture"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: paginated results and the specific return fields (image URLs, dimensions, photographer info, alt text).
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes only necessary information. Every phrase adds value: search by keyword, required, pagination, and return content.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers pagination and return fields, which are the key behavioral aspects, and the annotations provide safety context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining the query parameter. It does label it as 'keyword' and states it is required, providing some semantic meaning. However, it lacks extra detail like format or example (though the schema's examples help), so it barely meets a baseline level.
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's purpose: searching Unsplash photos by keyword. The verb 'Search' is specific, the resource is defined, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_photos and photo_random by emphasizing keyword-based search.
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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a keyword to search for) and provides clear context about pagination. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.