Squall Studio

Generate character image

generate_character_image

Generate a reference image for a character. Spends credits. Returns a job id — poll it with get_job.

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": {
      "character_id": "<character_id>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "generate_character_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user_notes`	No	Extra direction for the image.
`character_id`	Yes	Character id.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Stable key identifying this generation request. Reuse the SAME key when retrying the same request — the original job is returned and no second charge is made. Use a NEW key when you deliberately want another generation.
`character_look_id`	No	Specific look; defaults to the base look.
`reference_image_asset_ids`	No	Existing asset ids of pictures of the character. On the base look, the image draws the character in them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / reference_image_asset_ids / description

Previous value: -"Existing asset ids to use as references."New value: +"Existing asset ids of pictures of the character. On the base look, the image draws the character in them."

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the thin annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the two things an agent most needs: it consumes credits and it returns a job id rather than an image, requiring polling. It does not cover failure/refund behavior or rate limits, which keeps it below the top score.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (cost, async return) are front-loaded before routing advice. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 credit-spending async mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the cost, the return shape (job id) and the follow-up call. Remaining gaps — what the job result contains and what happens on failure or credit exhaustion — are modest but real.

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%, including a detailed explanation of idempotency_key and reference_image_asset_ids, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 specific verb and resource ('Generate a reference image for a character'), which distinguishes it from the sibling generate_location_image, generate_shot_clip and the read-side get_character tools. An agent can tell what it 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?

Gives a clear usage contract: it is asynchronous and the returned job id must be polled with get_job. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. when a look already has a reference image) or naming the alternative sibling, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

All Squall Studio 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?