Skip to main content
Glama

add_keywords

Add hierarchical keywords to photos in Lightroom Classic to organize and categorize your catalog for efficient searching and filtering.

Instructions

Add keywords (supports hierarchical format: A > B > C).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsYes
local_idsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The `add_keywords` tool is defined as an MCP tool using the `@mcp.tool()` decorator. It validates the input keywords and local_ids, creates a payload, and calls the internal `_call` function with the `metadata.add_keywords` command to interact with the Lightroom bridge.
    async def add_keywords(keywords: list[str], local_ids: list[int] | None = None) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Add keywords (supports hierarchical format: A > B > C)."""
        if not keywords:
            raise ValueError("keywords cannot be empty")
        payload: dict[str, Any] = {"keywords": [str(k) for k in keywords]}
        ids = validate_local_ids(local_ids)
        if ids:
            payload["local_ids"] = ids
        return await _call("metadata.add_keywords", payload)
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add keywords' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if keywords already exist, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate limits. The hierarchical format mention is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and a key feature (hierarchical format). There's zero wasted language, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral implications for a write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions hierarchical format support ('A > B > C'), which provides some context for the 'keywords' parameter format. However, it doesn't explain what 'local_ids' represents, its relationship to 'keywords', or provide any examples of valid keyword hierarchies. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is inadequate compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add keywords') and specifies the resource being modified. It also mentions the hierarchical format support, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_keywords' beyond the obvious verb difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or when not to use it. The existence of 'remove_keywords' as a sibling tool suggests there should be some differentiation guidance, but none is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/4xiomdev/lightroom-classic-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server