Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List a design's images and quote replacing them

plan_image_regeneration
Read-onlyIdempotent

The images a design shows — all of them, one page's, or one section's (max 20) — with the image_id of each, and the most replacing them could cost. Nothing is made. Pass the ids you want replaced and the returned credits as expected_credit_cost to regenerate_images.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoall = every image on the design; page = one page (page_slug); section = one section (section_name).
site_idYesThe site to act on
page_slugNoRequired when scope is "page", e.g. "/about".
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
section_nameNoRequired when scope is "section", e.g. "team", "hero".
variation_idNoThe design to work on. Omit for the site's live design.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is made'. It also adds two facts the annotations don't carry: a hard cap of 20 images and that the quoted cost is an upper bound ('the most replacing them could cost'), not an exact figure.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second the next action. No filler, and the key constraint (max 20) and the safety note sit where they are seen.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields (`image_id` per image and `credits`). It doesn't state ordering or what happens when a design exceeds 20 images, which is a minor gap for a read-only quoting 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 all six parameters are already documented, including the scope enum with its page_slug/section_name dependencies. The description restates the three scope modes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('lists the images a design shows') plus scope options and the cost quote, and explicitly distinguishes itself from regenerate_images. An agent can tell this is the read-only planning step ahead of replacement without opening another 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?

The second sentence gives the downstream handoff clearly: pass the returned `image_id`s and `credits` as `expected_credit_cost` to regenerate_images. Missing is any explicit exclusion versus other image-planning siblings (plan_image_concepts, apply_image_replacements, regenerate_images alone), so the when-not is left implied.

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

All Mondovo toolsInspect
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