Retrieve photos from a Yelp business's gallery by alias or encoded ID. Use limit and offset to paginate results up to 50 photos.
Get Yelp business photos. Fetches the photo gallery for a Yelp business.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Yelp business alias or encoded id | |
| limit | No | Max photos to return, 1-50 | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that it 'fetches' photos and discloses nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset semantics beyond the schema), whether it is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or what a result set looks like. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Fetches the photo gallery for a Yelp business') restates the first ('Get Yelp business photos') with no added information, wasting half the text on 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?
For a simple read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate to call the tool, but it leaves behavioral context (pagination, result shape, when to use vs siblings) uncovered. It stops at the minimum needed for a simple fetch.
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 description coverage is 100%, so id, limit (1-50), and offset are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about formats, defaults, or pagination semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get Yelp business photos' / 'photo gallery for a Yelp business'), so an agent can tell it returns photos rather than reviews or menus. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling yelp_business or other yelp_business_* tools, so sibling differentiation is absent.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not say whether to call this after resolving an id via yelp_search or yelp_geocode, nor when this is preferable to other business sub-resources. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.