Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lr-mcp

lr-mcp

by longfin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lr_create_project_album

Create a Lightroom project album owned by this server, adding asset IDs at creation to group and manage photos under Connections.

Instructions

Create a project album owned by this server (shown under Connections in Lightroom). Adds asset_ids right away if given.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "lr_create_project_album"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
asset_idsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 disclosure burden. It usefully reveals ownership scope, where the album surfaces in Lightroom, and that asset_ids are attached at creation time, but it omits auth/permission requirements, name-uniqueness behavior, and failure modes for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional-parameter behavior. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 described, and the tool is simple with only two parameters. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool it leaves gaps around authentication, duplicate names, and what happens when asset_ids reference invalid or inaccessible assets.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of asset_ids (assets are added immediately at creation rather than in a later call), which is genuinely useful, but adds nothing about the required name parameter or accepted ID format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a project album') and adds a differentiating ownership detail ('owned by this server') plus the Lightroom UI location. It implicitly separates itself from lr_add_to_project_album and lr_delete_project_album, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to create a new album versus adding to an existing one via lr_add_to_project_album, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether lr_login must run first). Usage is only faintly implied by the create verb.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools