userFetch the public Unsplash profile for a given username, including bio, location, follower/following counts, total photos/likes/collections, and portfolio URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | User's biography | |
| name | No | User's display name | |
| username | No | User's username | |
| photos_count | No | Number of photos uploaded by user |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the profile is 'public', which is a useful behavioral detail, and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid username) or rate limits, and the field list may already be in the output schema.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse.
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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the essential behavior and scope without requiring additional context.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It refers to 'given username', which identifies the single parameter and its role. For a simple string parameter, this is adequate, though it does not add constraints like format validity or case sensitivity.
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 states the tool's action ('Fetch') and resource ('public Unsplash profile for a given username'), listing specific fields (bio, location, counts, portfolio URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_photos and user_likes, which fetch different aspects.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a user's public profile information is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of 'profile' makes the use case obvious.
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.
The set mixes two unrelated domains (Unsplash photos and Pipeworx data services), creating confusion about the server's purpose. Within each domain tools are mostly distinct, but several near-duplicates exist (ask_pipeworx variants, multiple polymarket scanners) and the Unsplash cluster has overlapping list/get patterns.
No consistent naming convention: Unsplash tools use bare nouns, plurals, verb_noun, and noun_photo compounds; Pipeworx tools mix verb phrases (resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile), and vendor-prefixed names (polymarket_edges).
46 tools is far beyond the scope of an Unsplash server; over two-thirds belong to a different service. The tool count is unwieldy and indicates a bundled, unfocused collection.
The Unsplash-specific surface covers the public API well: search, listing, fetching by ID, random, collections, topics, user data, like/photo lists, statistics, and download tracking. Missing write operations (upload, update) are unavailable in the public API, so no dead ends for allowed workflows.