get_v2Image Search (V2) Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query. You can use search parameters. e.g. `adele site:youtube.com` e.g. `query -exclude` | |
| hl | No | Language code for search. Default: en | |
| tbs | No | Search filters. | |
| nfpr | No | ||
| safe | No | If you want safe search, set it to `active` | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for next results. | |
| filter | No | ||
| suggestion_query | No | Suggestion query (must be taken from response suggestions). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a billing cost ('1 Credits') and implies a read-only image search, but it does not describe result format, pagination, filters, rate limits, or other operational behavior. This is minimal transparency at best.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity. It is concise in form yet not appropriately sized because it omits essential context.
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?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool, this description is severely incomplete. It only states domain and billing cost, leaving the agent without enough information to select or invoke the tool confidently.
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?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The input schema already covers 75% of parameters, but for a tool with 8 optional parameters, the description should provide some guidance about which parameters matter or how they interact; it provides none.
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?
The description clearly identifies a domain and action: 'Image Search (V2)'. The version marker distinguishes it from the sibling get_v1, and the title adds 'recommended', but no explicit differentiation from get_v1 is provided beyond the version label.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_v1, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The title's 'recommended' is a weak signal, but the description itself provides no usage context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Both tools are named only by version (v1/v2) and share identical descriptions, so an agent cannot determine which to use. The overlap is complete rather than partial.
Names follow a consistent get_<version> pattern, but they lack a domain noun and are vague. No mixed conventions are present, so consistency is acceptable despite poor descriptiveness.
Two tools for image search is borderline; a single search capability might suffice, and two versioned duplicates feel redundant. The count is not extreme, but the tools do not clearly earn their place.
The tool surface appears to be only duplicate search/billing endpoints with no differentiation, no query/result details, and no supporting operations. For a functional image-search server, this is a significant gap.