pexels-mcp-pro

Collection media

collection_media

List photos and videos from a Pexels collection with inline thumbnails. Supports filtering by type, pagination, and custom preview size.

Instructions

List media inside a collection (photos and/or videos), compact format + inline thumbnails.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "collection_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Collection id from featured_collections
`page`	No
`type`	No	Filter to one media type
`per_page`	No
`previews`	No
`preview_height`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it lists media in compact format with inline thumbnails. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, or any other side effects. It adds value beyond a bare 'list' but leaves gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core function and output format.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination, filtering (e.g., the 'type' parameter), or error conditions. A user or agent would need to infer or experiment to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the purpose of fields like 'page', 'per_page', 'previews', or 'preview_height'. The tool has 6 parameters, and the description offers no help in understanding them beyond what the sparse schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List media inside a collection (photos and/or videos), compact format + inline thumbnails', specifying the action, resource, and output format, distinguishing it from siblings like search_photos or featured_collections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a collection ID from featured_collections) or situations where other tools would be more appropriate. The input schema mentions the ID source, but the description itself does not.

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

Deploy Server