Update photo album settings by renaming it or preventing it from appearing in slideshows. Provide album ID and optional fields.
Update a photo album (rename, hide from slideshow).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| exclude_from_slideshow | No | Hide this album from the frame slideshow. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds some context about the types of updates (rename, hide from slideshow) but does not disclose side effects, partial-update behavior, or what happens when optional fields are omitted.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a parenthetical to enumerate key operations. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 update tool with a required id and optional fields, the description is mostly adequate for calling it with title or exclude_from_slideshow. However, it omits frameId semantics and does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved, leaving some inference required.
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 only 25%, with only exclude_from_slideshow described. The description adds meaning for title ('rename') and exclude_from_slideshow ('hide from slideshow'), but frameId is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 names the resource ('photo album') and the action ('Update'), and gives two concrete update operations: rename and hide from slideshow. This distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/album operations, though it does not mention the frameId update capability.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_album, delete_album, add_to_album, or set_device_album. The intended use is implied by the update verb, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.