generate_imageGenerate an image from a text prompt and return a link to it. — Сгенерировать изображение по описанию, возвращает ссылку.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Size, e.g. 1024x1024 | |
| model | No | Image model, fal-ai/flux/schnell by default | |
| prompt | Yes | Image description |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| model | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "model": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it returns a link, which is useful, but does not disclose external service dependencies, generation time, or cost implications. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited extra behavioral context beyond them.
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 a single sentence with the key action front-loaded. The bilingual repetition (English and Russian) is redundant but not detrimental to clarity or length.
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?
With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficient for a simple tool. It doesn't mention model/size options, but those are documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Generate an image from a text prompt') and the outcome ('return a link to it'). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on models and usage, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. However, the sibling tools are functionally distinct (model queries, balance, usage), so the context is implied but not stated.
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.