mpaz_list_photo_galleriesList photo galleries from Myers Park High School athletics site. Retrieve read-only gallery links with direct CDN image access for updates and media use.
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.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting that gallery images sit on a public CDN and can be fetched directly without auth, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 brief, front-loaded with the resource, and includes useful auth/CDN context in the second sentence. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so not every element adds new information, but overall it is compact.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description covers resource scope and the non-obvious public-CDN/no-auth behavior. It does not describe the shape of returned gallery entries, but the lack of an output schema makes that omission less critical.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.
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 identifies the resource ('photo galleries published on the site') and the read-only framing makes the listing action clear. It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the resource is distinct enough from sibling tools such as list_videos and list_news.
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 implies usage when photo gallery metadata is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. The CDN/auth note is useful context but does not route the agent away from or toward any sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.