Say It Again

Describe a presenter

describe_presenter

Draw a presenter of the team's own from a description of how they look, as the app's Describe a presenter does: an adult, invented, not a real person or a character. Free, and counted against the team's 5 drawings a day; a description refused, or a drawing that fails, gives its drawing back. Answers an id at once: call get_described with it every few seconds until its status is ready or refused.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "describe_presenter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	A name to call them by. Left out, they are numbered.
`description`	Yes	How the presenter looks: age, hair, clothes, manner. In a few words or more.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / description / maxLength
```
Previous value: -300New value: +2000
```
First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description goes well past that: it discloses an asynchronous pattern with an immediate id return, a 5-drawings-per-day quota with refunds on refusal or failure, and content limits (must be an invented adult, not a real person or character). Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending a quota slot.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and packs cost, restrictions, and polling into a few sentences without filler. The quota sentence is somewhat compressed into a semicolon clause that takes a re-read, which costs a bit of clarity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return shape (an id returned immediately) and the full lifecycle (poll get_described for ready/refused), plus the cost and refund behavior. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter asynchronous generation 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 24-character name and the 2000-character description. The prose only restates that a look description drives the drawing and says nothing extra about the optional name parameter, so the schema carries the semantics.

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 definition opens with a concrete verb and resource — drawing a presenter from a written description — and bounds it further with 'an adult, invented, not a real person or a character.' It is readily separable from siblings such as keep_presenter, set_presenter_voice, and list_presenters.

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?

It states the conditions for calling it (need a new team-owned presenter), the content restrictions that will get a request refused, the quota cost and refund rule, and the mandatory follow-up — poll get_described every few seconds until status is ready or refused. That is an explicit when/how contract rather than an implied one.

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

All Say It Again tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.