Skip to main content
Glama

draw_presenter

Create a new AI presenter (a talking on-screen host) from a written description, and show the picture in the chat for the user to approve. This is step one of making a presenter: create, adjust with change_presenter until they like it, then make_presenter turns the picture into a talking avatar. Creating the picture is free and can be redone (a daily limit applies); calling this again replaces any unmade draft. Describe who they are and their setting: age, build, hair, clothes, expression, the desk or room behind them. Do not describe a real identifiable person. The picture is always a photoreal presenter seated at a desk facing the camera, hands resting on the desk; the description only fills in who they are. Premium and Ultimate.

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": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "draw_presenter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesWho the presenter is and where they sit, in plain words: e.g. 'a friendly British farmer in his 50s, flat cap, checked shirt, in a rustic barn'. 10 to 600 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided the description carries the full burden, and it discloses cost ('free'), redo behavior ('can be redone'), a rate constraint ('a daily limit applies'), and a destructive side effect ('calling this again replaces any unmade draft'). It further pins the output composition (always a photoreal presenter seated at a desk, hands on the desk) so the agent knows what the description can and cannot control.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and workflow, and nearly every sentence adds new constraints rather than restating. The trailing fragment 'Premium and Ultimate.' is under-explained and reads as bolted on, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow, cost, limits, replacement semantics, tier gating, and expected result. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: which attributes to include (age, build, hair, clothes, expression, room behind them), a prohibition on real identifiable people, and the fact that only identity/setting varies. The fixed staging info is the main thing the schema's example does not convey.

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 ('Create a new AI presenter... from a written description') plus the immediate side effect (the picture is shown in chat for approval). It also disambiguates from look-alike siblings by naming draw/change/make presenter steps, so an agent can tell it apart from change_presenter and make_presenter without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Lays out the full workflow explicitly: this is step one, then change_presenter to adjust, then make_presenter to convert to a talking avatar. It also states exclusions ('Do not describe a real identifiable person') and tier eligibility ('Premium and Ultimate'), leaving little to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources