lr-mcp

by longfin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

lr_add_to_project_album

Add specified asset IDs to a project album in a Lightroom catalog. Albums created by the user cannot be modified.

Instructions

Add photos to a project album. Albums the user created cannot be modified.

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": {
      "album_id": "<album_id>",
      "asset_ids": "<asset_ids>"
    },
    "name": "lr_add_to_project_album"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`album_id`	Yes
`asset_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a hard failure condition (user-created albums reject this operation), but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, existing membership, batch size limits, or partial-failure behavior for an array of asset_ids.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately following. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the key constraint is present. But for a mutation with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves gaps around permissions, duplicate/existing asset behavior, and limits on the asset_ids array.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented anywhere, so the description must compensate. It only obliquely implies that asset_ids are the photos and album_id identifies the target album, giving no ID format, batch constraints, or ordering semantics.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add photos to a project album'), which clearly separates it from lr_create_project_album and lr_delete_project_album. It does not name those siblings, but the 'project album' qualifier does establish which album subtype this applies to.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Albums the user created cannot be modified' functions as a when-not condition, telling the agent this call is only valid for project albums. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between this tool and its siblings (e.g., creating an album first), leaving usage implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server