List images in one of your Shutterstock collections, with page and per-page controls to browse results up to 50 at a time.
List the images in one of the user's collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page of results, from 1. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, at most 50. | |
| collection_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no result ordering, no statement about behavior for an empty or unknown collection, and no indication of what a page of results looks like. With the annotation bar already met, the description contributes almost no extra behavioral context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and paging is covered by the schema. Still missing for a read tool are result ordering and the behavior for an invalid or empty collection, which would make this callable without guesswork.
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 67%, with both paging parameters documented in the schema (defaults, bounds) while collection_id is bare. The description only weakly compensates by implying collection_id identifies one of the user's own collections; it gives no format or provenance detail for obtaining that id.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the images in one of the user's collections'), which clearly separates it from list_collections and the search_* siblings. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource itself is 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of how this differs from search_images or list_collections, and no stated prerequisites (for example, that a collection_id must be obtained first). Usage is only implied by the tool name and sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.