photos-mcp

Photos Restore

photos_restore

Idempotent

Restore up to 50 trashed photos or videos to the Google Photos library using their item IDs from the trash list.

Instructions

Bring up to 50 photos or videos back from the trash into the library. Returns restored, not_in_trash and, per id, restored (read back from the trash).

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "photos_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Item ids as photos_list(source=trash) gives them (max 50)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.3Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add operational context — and it does, by capping the batch at 50 and warning that some ids may come back as not_in_trash, i.e. partial success is possible. It stops short of saying what happens on unknown or malformed ids.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, which is good. The return clause is garbled — 'Returns restored, not_in_trash and, per id, restored (read back from the trash)' reuses 'restored' for two different meanings — and it duplicates the output schema, so the second sentence fails to earn its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter mutation with full annotations and an output schema, this covers what the agent needs: action, batch limit, and the possibility of per-id failures. The only real gap is error behavior for ids that don't exist at all.

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 a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'up to 50' merely repeats maxItems=50 and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('bring photos or videos back from the trash into the library'), which cleanly separates it from photos_delete and photos_list. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the trash-restore scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the counterpart to photos_delete and that ids should come from a trash listing (which the schema, not the description, states). There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of an alternative tool.

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

Deploy Server