Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
neshan-mcp

neshan-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Neshan place photos

ns_photos
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a place's photos as image URLs, paginated 10 per page, with date and uploader details, including menu albums.

Instructions

List a place's photos on Neshan as image URLs, 10 per page, with date and uploader, including menu photos.

Use for a place's photos or menu (album 'menus'). Each photo has full-size url, Persian date and author. albums lists the place's albums; pages is the page count.

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": {
      "place_id": "<place_id>"
    },
    "name": "ns_photos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage of 10 photos.
albumNo'all' (newest first) or an album id from `albums` / ns_place photo_categories, e.g. 'menus'.all
place_idYesPlace `id` from ns_search.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: fixed page size of 10, the presence of date and uploader metadata, and the existence of `albums` and `pages` companion fields. It stops short of describing rate limits, auth, or the full response envelope.

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?

Two short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler. However, the second paragraph mixes parameter names (`albums`) with return-field names (`url`, `date`, `author`, `pages`) without labeling which is which, which slightly muddies an otherwise tight structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description does name the key returned fields (image url, Persian date, author, albums, page count), so an agent knows what comes back. Remaining ambiguity is the response envelope shape and whether album listing requires a separate call, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, including defaults and the 1-500 page bound, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema says ('10 per page', album 'menus') and only marginally adds that album ids come from `albums` or ns_place photo_categories.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List a place's photos on Neshan as image URLs') plus scope details (10 per page, date and uploader, menu photos). This clearly separates it from siblings like ns_reviews or ns_place, which an agent would otherwise confuse with a photo listing.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use for a place's photos or menu (album 'menus')', giving a concrete selection rule. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative sibling to avoid, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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