apple-photos-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

doctor

Diagnoses setup issues by checking Python, osxphotos, sidecar mode, write-tools gate, Photos library readability, and Full Disk Access; returns ok/warn/fail with actionable advice.

Instructions

Use when: a tool returns a permission, 'unable to open', or 'write tools are disabled' error, or you want a full setup diagnostic before querying, exporting, or writing. Returns: six checks — Python interpreter (path + version; warns below 3.11), osxphotos install, sidecar mode (persistent vs one-shot, plus last respawn), the write-tools gate (enabled/disabled, with the opt-in recipe and — when enabled — whether the photoscript backend and Photos.app look usable), Photos library readability, and Full Disk Access — each reported ok/warn/fail with actionable advice. Do not use when: you only need the lightweight is-it-working smoke test — use health-check instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checks`	No
`healthy`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.13Sep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.9Aug 7, 2026
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```
Addedv1.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool checks and the ok/warn/fail format, and implies a non-destructive diagnostic role through 'before querying, exporting, or writing'. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, a minor gap given the diagnostic context. Overall transparent about its operation.

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?

The description is structured with clear 'Use when', 'Returns', and 'Do not use when' sections, and each sentence contributes valuable information. It is somewhat lengthy for a no-arg tool, but the detail is justified given the diagnostic scope and the need to differentiate from siblings. Slightly long prevents a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, use cases, return content (six checks, each with ok/warn/fail and actionable advice), and alternatives. With no parameters and an existing output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds context about what the tool does with no parameters, which is sufficient.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'full setup diagnostic' and enumerates the six specific checks (Python interpreter, osxphotos install, sidecar mode, write-tools gate, Photos library, Full Disk Access). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'health-check' by specifying the scenario (when a permission/error occurs or before querying/exporting/writing) vs the lightweight smoke test. No ambiguity exists about what it does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses define the precise conditions for invocation, and explicitly name the alternative tool ('health-check') for the opposite case. This leaves no inference burden on the agent.

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