Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lr-mcp

lr-mcp

by longfin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

lr_get_photo

Retrieve detailed metadata for one Adobe Lightroom photo by asset ID, including capture info, rating, flag, original file, and an edit summary.

Instructions

Details for one photo: capture info, rating/flag, original file, and a summary of its edits.

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": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "lr_get_photo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_idYes
include_developNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Details for one photo' does signal a read-only retrieval, which is the main safety-relevant fact. It adds no information about permissions, catalog/account requirements, or side effects, so it is adequate rather than rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence that packs the retrieval verb and the returned content with no filler. Slightly list-like rather than prose, but every clause earns its place.

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 no further explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. However, the undocumented parameters and absent usage/alternative guidance leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 the description never mentions either parameter. 'asset_id' semantics (catalog ID, filename, or URN) are unstated, and 'include_develop' (default true) is only loosely hinted at by the phrase 'a summary of its edits' — an agent cannot tell what toggling it does.

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 clear retrieval action on a single resource ('Details for one photo') and enumerates what comes back: capture info, rating/flag, original file, and edit summary. The singular 'one photo' implicitly separates it from list-oriented siblings like lr_list_photos and lr_view_photos, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the per-asset detail lookup versus the list tools, but the description never states when to prefer it over lr_view_photos, lr_list_photos, or lr_download_photos. No prerequisites, auth, or exclusions are given.

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