Search stock images across Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay by keyword, then filter results by provider, count, or orientation.
Search stock images across providers. Available providers: pexels
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of images per provider (default: 5, max: 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search term for images | |
| provider | No | Which provider to search (default: all configured) | all |
| orientation | No | Image orientation filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little: it does not mention provider API key/credential requirements, rate limits, or that results are metadata rather than image bytes. The only real disclosure is which providers exist.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the provider availability noted immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin — it omits return shape, whether results are paginated or deduplicated across providers, and what happens when a provider is unconfigured. An agent would need to trial-and-error these.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of runtime context — "Available providers: pexels" — which is slightly helpful given the schema's "default: all configured" wording, but it does not explain count, orientation, or query semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search stock images") and adds scope ("across providers"), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling download_image. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the two, but the read-vs-fetch distinction is inferable.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing about when to choose this over download_image, whether a prior search is required before downloading, or how the provider parameter interacts with the task. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.