get_space_photoRetrieve the photo for a Starling savings or spending space by space UID. Optionally provide account UID to select the correct account when retrieving it.
Returns the photo of a space (savings or spending).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceUid | Yes | Space UID | |
| accountUid | No | Account UID. Optional: defaults to STARLING_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_UID, the only account, or the PRIMARY account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it does not say what form the photo is returned in (binary, base64, URL) or what happens when a space has no photo, which is the kind of detail that would earn credit here.
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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness leaves useful detail on the table rather than being maximally informative.
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-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, since no output schema exists, the description should ideally convey what a 'photo' response looks like or that it may be absent — that gap keeps it from being complete.
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 both spaceUid and accountUid (including the default-account fallback rule) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Returns) and resource (the photo of a space), and clarifies that 'space' means a savings or spending space, which distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like get_savings_goal_photo and get_profile_image. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the many other image/photo siblings (get_savings_goal_photo, get_payee_image, get_profile_image) or on prerequisites such as whether a photo must exist. Usage is only implied by the name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.