pinterest_preview_imagesFetch small thumbnails of Pinterest pin images so you can preview up to 16 at once before downloading or inspecting full-resolution originals.
Fetch small thumbnails of pin images (image_url values from other tools) so you can see them. Up to 16 at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Thumbnail width; larger costs more tokens | 236x |
| image_urls | Yes | i.pinimg.com image URLs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the result is visual content the agent can actually perceive, and URLs are meant to come from other tools. It does not cover failure modes for invalid/non-pinimg URLs or what happens with fewer than the max items.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with the batch limit trailing. No filler to remove.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does explain what comes back (small thumbnails the agent can view), which is the key unknown for a multimodal tool. It could say more about behavior on partial failures or oversized batches, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance ('image_url values from other tools') that tells the agent where legitimate inputs originate, which the schema's 'i.pinimg.com image URLs' does not fully convey. The size parameter's tradeoff is left entirely to 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?
States a concrete verb and resource ('Fetch small thumbnails of pin images') and clarifies the intent ('so you can see them'), which separates it from text-returning siblings like pinterest_get_pin. It never names pinterest_download, which is the obvious alternative for full-size images, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
'so you can see them' implies the scenario (visual inspection) and the parenthetical points at chained calls, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as pinterest_download for full-resolution images. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.