PhotoForge MCP Server

favorite_generation

Toggle favorite status on an image generation or rename it to organize and identify creative assets.

Instructions

Toggle favorite status or rename an image generation.

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": {
      "generationId": "<generationId>"
    },
    "name": "favorite_generation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional new name.
`isFavorite`	No	Favorite flag.
`generationId`	Yes	ID of the generation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and falls short. It doesn't disclose that 'toggle' is state-flipping (calling twice restores the original state), whether passing isFavorite explicitly sets rather than toggles the flag, whether renaming requires the favorite field to be omitted, or what the call returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, well sized for a three-parameter tool. The compressed 'or' wording is efficient but contributes to the mode-selection ambiguity noted elsewhere.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain operation modes, toggle semantics, and the effect of the response. None of that is present, so an agent must guess how the two optional parameters interact.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only loosely maps 'rename' to the name field and 'favorite' to isFavorite, adding no format, length, or uniqueness constraints beyond the schema.

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 names two concrete operations (toggle favorite, rename) on a concrete resource (an image generation), so an agent can tell what it does. It doesn't differentiate from siblings such as list_generations or delete_generation, though the name itself is fairly specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor on how to choose between the two modes it advertises. The 'or' hints at either a favorite toggle or a rename, but nothing says whether both fields can be set in one call or what happens if neither optional field is supplied.

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