set Banner Img
post_base_apitools_setBannerImgset Banner Img Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| bannerUrl | No | banner online url | |
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No |
post_base_apitools_setBannerImgset Banner Img Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| bannerUrl | No | banner online url | |
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or other behavioral aspects. It is completely opaque.
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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it lacks substantive content and does not front-load key information. It is not effectively sized for the purpose.
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?
There is no output schema, no examples, no explanation of the expected result, and no context about the API. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 schema has six parameters, but only 'bannerUrl' has a minimal description ('banner online url'). The rest (ct0, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) are undocumented, and the description does not compensate.
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 the tool sets a banner image, but it is vague and does not provide specific details about the resource or context. It barely distinguishes from similar set* tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context or conditions are provided.
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.