user_photosList photos uploaded by a specific Unsplash username; returns paginated photo objects with image URLs, likes, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Array of photos uploaded by the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "username": "johndoe"
- },
- {
- "per_page": 15,
- "username": "johndoe"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "username": "johndoe"
+ },
+ {
+ "username": "johndoe"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses pagination behavior and the nature of returned data (photo objects with URLs, likes, metadata), which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotent annotations. No side effects are stated, but the read-only nature is already covered by annotations, and the description complements them without 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action and resource, then adds relevant return details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant information.
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 one required parameter, and the output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. The description covers the essential behavior (listing a user's photos with pagination) and together with the read-only annotations, it provides a complete picture for a straightforward tool.
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 input schema provides no description for the 'username' parameter (0% coverage). The description clarifies that it is an Unsplash username, but does not elaborate on format, case sensitivity, or relationship to other user-related tools. Since it offers partial semantic value but leaves room for further specification, a 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool's action ('List') and resource ('photos uploaded by a specific Unsplash username'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like user_likes or search_photos. It also specifies the return type (photo objects with URLs, likes, metadata), making its function unambiguous.
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 the primary use case: retrieving a specific user's uploaded photos by username. It does not explicitly name alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, though the 'specific Username' phrasing provides contextual clarity, warranting a 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.