fci-mcp

fluxink-mcp-chatgpt-synthesize-handwriting-style

Read-only

Internal FluxInk natural texture ink execution endpoint. Invoked ONLY by the style canvas widget when the user clicks Generate. Do NOT call this tool directly from chat. To render text in the personal handwriting style of the user, call show_style_canvas instead. This endpoint requires JSON encoded style strokes captured by the widget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Text to synthesize in the captured handwriting style.
`cell_size`	No	Character cell size in pixels.
`legibility`	No	Legibility level (0.0 to 2.0).
`style_text`	No	Text the user actually wrote as the style sample (for accurate style conditioning). If omitted, the backend auto recognises via handwriting recognition.
`stroke_width`	No	Output stroke width (1.0 to 15.0).
`style_strokes`	Yes	JSON encoded array of style strokes captured from the canvas.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`charCount`	No
`imageBase64`	No
`inferenceTimeMs`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool requires JSON-encoded style strokes from the canvas, clarifying its internal nature and prerequisites. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage warning and alternative, third adds prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Given high schema coverage and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage boundaries. Lacks examples or error handling details, but adequate for an internal tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description does not provide additional details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is an internal endpoint for ink execution, invoked by the style canvas widget, and distinguishes from sibling show_style_canvas by warning not to call directly from chat.

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?

Explicitly says 'Do NOT call this tool directly from chat' and provides specific alternative: 'call show_style_canvas instead'. Also states it is invoked ONLY by the widget.

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

All fci-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: layout generation, handwriting canvas, style canvas, image text recognition, and two internal endpoints. The descriptions are highly detailed with explicit 'Do NOT use' instructions, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern (create, recognize, show, synthesize) with hyphens. Minor inconsistency: two 'recognize' tools could cause confusion, but one is clearly marked as internal. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of document layout, handwriting input, OCR, and style generation. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too small nor excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main workflows: layout creation, handwriting capture/recognition, image OCR, and personal handwriting style synthesis. Minor gaps like lack of an edit tool for layouts are understandable given the domain; agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?