get_photos_for_eventFetch photos and media assets associated with an event by providing its event ID. Use this tool to access visual documentation for any life event.
Assets linked to an event. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| photos | No | ||
| event_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: cost ($0.10) and the requirement for an API key. However, it does not explain behavior beyond that, such as what the returned 'assets' represent or any pagination/limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the added cost/auth info earns a 3.
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 short sentence, so it is concise in length, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information. The core purpose is vague ('Assets linked to an event'), and the useful cost/API key details come after. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.
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?
Even though the tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to clarify what 'assets' means, does not mention event_id, and does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool or distinguish it from similar tools like get_photos_for_place. The description is wholly inadequate for effective use.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the event_id parameter at all. The agent is left to infer that event_id identifies an event, but no format, semantics, or relationship to other tools is provided. The description adds no value for the parameter.
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 'Assets linked to an event.' is a noun phrase, not an explicit action like 'Retrieve' or 'Get'. It is vague about what 'assets' means (photos? other files?) and does not differentiate from siblings such as get_entity_assets or get_photos_for_place. The name suggests photos, but the description says assets, adding confusion.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides cost and API key requirements, which are not usage guidelines. No mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.