user_likesList photos that a specific Unsplash username has liked; returns paginated photo objects with image URLs, photographer, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Array of photos liked by the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "username": "johndoe"
- },
- {
- "page": 1,
- "username": "johndoe"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "username": "johndoe"
+ },
+ {
+ "username": "johndoe"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the paginated return format and contents (image URLs, photographer, metadata), which goes beyond structured 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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no wasted 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 one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, return type, and safety profile. No significant gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that the 'username' parameter is a specific Unsplash username, adding meaning beyond the plain string type. It doesn't detail format but is sufficient for the 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 resource ('photos that a specific Unsplash username has liked'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like user_photos (uploaded 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 implies when to use it (when you need a user's liked photos) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context but aren't referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.