Fetch a image downloads[n].url from a completed image project and return it as inline MCP image content for compatible clients. Pass the exact full signed URL from downloads[n].url without trimming query parameters; expires_at is separate metadata, not part of the URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_bytes | No | ||
| download_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that the result is inline MCP image content for compatible clients and warns that `expires_at` is metadata, not part of the URL—this helps prevent a likely misuse. It does not mention size-limit or error behavior, but the core behavior and a key edge case are disclosed.
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, with the primary action and output first, followed immediately by the most critical input instruction. No filler or repeated schema information; every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover both behavior and context on its own. It explains the source URL and return format well, but omits the meaning of `max_bytes` and any guidance about waiting for project completion or handling expired URLs. This leaves moderate gaps for a two-parameter tool.
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 essential meaning to `download_url`—it must be the exact full signed URL, query parameters intact, and `expires_at` must not be appended. However, schema coverage is 0% and the optional `max_bytes` parameter is never explained in the description, leaving its purpose and effect to inference from its name and default value.
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 states a specific action—'Fetch' an image using the exact signed `downloads[n].url` from a completed image project—and clearly defines the output as inline MCP image content. This distinguishes it from sibling download tools like fetch_audio_download and fetch_video_download by naming the image-specific resource and outcome.
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?
It provides clear context: use the tool only with a URL from a completed image project and pass the exact full signed URL without trimming query parameters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the timing and input constraints are strong enough guidance for an agent.
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.
Most tools are differentiated by product-specific prefixes (e.g., lip_sync, text_to_video, image_upscaler), but the set contains many overlapping create_image/create_video tools, and generic editors like ai_image_editor_create_image and ai_video_editor_create_video blur boundaries with their more specific counterparts. Face/body swapping tools also occupy a similar conceptual space, requiring careful description reading to avoid misselection.
Names generally follow a descriptive snake_case pattern of feature plus action (e.g., text_to_video_create_video, image_projects_delete, wait_for_image_project). Minor inconsistencies like ai_face_editor_edit_image versus the dominant create_image suffix, and the mixed ai_ prefix usage across tools, prevent a perfect score.
44 tools is a large surface for an MCP server, even for a broad media-generation API. The count exceeds the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy selection burden, especially with over a dozen create tools for images and videos.
The surface covers the full create-to-download workflow for image, video, and audio: creation, status polling, wait helpers, fetch helpers, delete, and asset upload support. Minor gaps include no list/cancel endpoints and no general project search, but agents can complete core tasks without dead ends.
