img-src MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic functionality by mentioning 'Supports pagination and folder browsing' and specifying the return includes 'images and subfolders'. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds supporting details in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality (listing with pagination/folder browsing) and output (images and subfolders), with zero wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic behavior and output structure but lacks details on error cases, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully helpful.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('images in your img-src.io account'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_images' by focusing on listing rather than searching, and from 'get_image' by handling multiple images rather than a single one.

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 clear context for usage by mentioning 'folder browsing' and 'pagination', which helps understand when to use it for structured navigation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_images' or 'get_image', missing sibling differentiation.

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