topic_photosList photos belonging to a specific Unsplash topic by id or slug; returns paginated photo objects with image URLs, EXIF, and photographer info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Array of photos in the topic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "id_or_slug": "nature"
- },
- {
- "id_or_slug": "nature",
- "per_page": 30
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "id_or_slug": "nature"
+ },
+ {
+ "id_or_slug": "nature"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by disclosing pagination and the contents of the returned objects (image URLs, EXIF, photographer info), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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?
One well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists return characteristics. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter tool, rich annotations, and available output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and pagination. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on pagination controls or when to choose a sibling tool, but overall it is complete enough for correct usage.
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 only parameter, id_or_slug, has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description explicitly states it can be an id or slug, providing essential meaning. It lacks format examples or details, but this is sufficient for a single parameter.
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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: photos belonging to a specific Unsplash topic by id or slug. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_photos, list_photos, and search_photos.
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 when to use this tool—when you need photos from a specific Unsplash topic—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. That prevents a 5, but the context is unambiguous enough for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.