mpaz_list_photo_galleriesList all photo galleries published on the site, with images directly accessible from the public CDN for viewing or downloading without authentication.
Photo galleries published on the site. Images sit on a public CDN and can be fetched directly, no auth. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by disclosing that images are on a public CDN and require no authentication. This is helpful for understanding the tool's behavior. The 'Read-only' statement is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but does not contradict it.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core subject. However, the final sentence 'Read-only' repeats information already provided by the readOnlyHint annotation, adding slight redundancy. Overall it is appropriately sized.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is being returned and that images are directly fetchable. It does not detail return structure or pagination, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter semantics are required.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('photo galleries published on the site') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mpaz_list_news and mpaz_list_videos. The verb 'list' is not explicitly stated in the description but is present in the tool name/title, making the purpose clear but slightly implicit.
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?
The description provides context that images are on a public CDN and can be fetched without auth, which is useful for how to handle results, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.