產生 CSS 漸層（linear、radial、conic），可選流動動畫與漸層文字。colors 用逗號分隔 HEX。
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": {
"colors": "<colors>"
},
"name": "generate_gradient"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| angle | No | ||
| speed | No | ||
| colors | Yes | ||
| animate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the gradient types and the optional flowing animation / gradient-text behaviors. However, as a code-generating tool it never states what is actually returned (CSS snippet vs file) or any constraints on the animation, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
Extremely terse and front-loaded: the core capability comes first, followed by optional features and the format hint. Nothing is padded, though the terseness is partly responsible for the missing parameter detail.
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 five parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully specify the tool. It leaves the semantics of angle and speed, and the shape of the returned CSS, undefined for the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains colors as comma-separated HEX and implies valid type values via linear/radial/conic, but angle (numeric) and speed (numeric) are completely undocumented, leaving the meaning of those parameters undefined.
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?
States a specific verb (產生/generate) and resource (CSS 漸層) and enumerates the three gradient types (linear, radial, conic), so the agent can tell it apart from siblings like generate_easing or generate_keyframes. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The mention of optional animation and gradient text implies capabilities but gives no condition under which an agent should choose this tool over the other generate_* siblings.
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.