framesail

Generate reference images

assets_generate

Destructive

Render reference images, which keep each character, environment and object looking the same in every segment. Needs both style template images. Without asset_ids it renders every asset with none, skipping ones already rendering, so a repeat never bills twice. Afterwards, view_image them to check likeness.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "assets_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No	Model id (get_generation_options); omit for the saved choice
`dry_run`	No	Return the count and credit estimate; start nothing
`settings`	No	Model settings: keys of its settings_schema
`asset_ids`	No	Assets to render, again if they have one; omit for every asset without a reference image
`project_id`	Yes	Project id
`editable_sections`	No	Template prompt section overrides, keyed by section id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: in-flight assets are skipped and a repeat never bills twice. That cost/skip semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It still doesn't say what a re-render overwrites or what permissions are required.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (prerequisite, default behavior, billing, follow-up). The phrase "renders every asset with none" is compressed to the point of ambiguity, which costs it the top score.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, default scoping, billing behavior and a verification step; model/settings/dry_run details are handled by the schema. It is nearly complete, with only the destructive/overwrite semantics left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema for asset_ids by explaining the skip-already-rendering and no-double-billing consequence of omitting it. That is real added meaning rather than a restatement.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Render reference images") and immediately states the job they do — keeping characters, environments and objects consistent across segments — which separates it from sibling generators like style_generate or storyboard_generate. An agent can tell what this produces without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the precondition ("Needs both style template images") and a recommended follow-up ("Afterwards, view_image them to check likeness"), plus the two calling modes via asset_ids. It never says when not to use it or how it compares to the other *_generate siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All framesail 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.

Resources

Need Help?