Allen Brain API MCP Server

get_section_images

List section images from a specified section data set by providing its ID.

Instructions

List section images belonging to a specified section data set (from ImageDownloadApi).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sectionDataSetId": "<sectionDataSetId>"
    },
    "name": "get_section_images"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sectionDataSetId`	Yes	Section Data Set ID.
`numRows`	No	Maximum number of rows (default is 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List', implying read-only, but fails to disclose key behaviors such as pagination, error handling, or what happens if the sectionDataSetId is invalid. The default value for numRows is mentioned in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on return format, pagination, expected data shape, and error scenarios. Given the absence of annotations, more completeness is required.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the context of sectionDataSetId. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already captures parameter meaning adequately.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'section images' with the scope 'belonging to a specified section data set'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'download_section_image' (downloads) and 'get_section_data_sets_by_product' (gets datasets).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from ImageDownloadApi' provides context but no when-not or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated from siblings.

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