topicsList Unsplash editorial topics (curated content channels like "nature", "architecture"); returns topic id, slug, title, description, cover photo, and curator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Array of topic objects |
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 read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific return fields (id, slug, title, description, cover photo, curator), which gives useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 resource, then lists the return fields. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning a perfect score.
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 with strong annotations and an output schema present. The description explains the return value structure, so the agent knows what to expect. It is complete for a list-type tool with no side effects or complex requirements.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is effectively 100% as there are no properties. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate. No parameter semantics are missing, though the schema examples hint at 'per_page' which is not documented, but this does not affect the score.
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 lists Unsplash editorial topics, using the specific verb 'List' and identifying the resource as curated content channels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'topic' (which likely fetches a single topic) and 'topic_photos' by focusing on the collection-level list.
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 usage for browsing all editorial topics but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context is clear and sufficient for a list endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.