Skip to main content
Glama

nanoodle

by io.github.nanoodlecom
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

night-market-postcard

Create a landscape travel postcard illustration from a place and mood. Change both inputs for a new destination. GLM Flash writes the prompt; Muse renders at 3:2 (image step $0.01, plus text). Insp… text:Place -> choice:Vibe -> join:Spec -> llm:Postcard prompt -> image:Postcard; returns image (muse-image/text-to-image, 3:2) saved to disk (file path in result). Runs on NanoGPT — $0.03 deposit per call, paid in Nano (XNO) — settles at actual model cost + 20%, change returned; no account needed. Example: Reviewed sample (https://nanoodle.com/examples/gallery/#night-market-postcard). An illustrated Raohe night-market postcard from the saved place and atmosphere inputs. Use it as creative artwork rather than a documentary record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
VibeNoChoice; default: "warm illustrated travel print"; optional
PlaceNoText; default: "Raohe night market, Taipei — grilled squid smoke hanging in the lane, red lanterns, wet asphalt, one stall still roaring"; optional
_payment_idNoPayment id from this tool's previous payment-required response. Phase 3 only: after /x402/watch closes with status paid, call again with the same arguments plus this id to open the RESULTS stream. Do not pass it while payment is still pending — monitor the watch SSE first.
Postcard_promptNoSystem prompt; default: "Write one image prompt for a 3:2 landscape travel postcard illustration from the supplied place and mood. Preserve su..."; optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / Postcard_prompt / description
      Previous value: -"System prompt; default: \"Write ONE image prompt in the final answer text (not only in hidden reasoning). Cinematic 3:2 landscape travel postca...\"; optional"New value: +"System prompt; default: \"Write one image prompt for a 3:2 landscape travel postcard illustration from the supplied place and mood. Preserve su...\"; optional"
    • changedInput schema / properties / Vibe / description
      Previous value: -"Choice; default: \"humid neon, crowded, reflections in puddles\"; optional"New value: +"Choice; default: \"warm illustrated travel print\"; optional"
    • changedInput schema / properties / Vibe / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "humid neon, crowded, reflections in puddles",
-  "rainy analog film, grain, amber sodium lamps",
-  "late-night steam, quieter alley, one stall still open",
-  "cyberpunk postcard, saturated teal and magenta, still photoreal"
-]New value: +[
+  "warm illustrated travel print",
+  "fine-grain analog photograph",
+  "quiet watercolor scene",
+  "bold two-color screenprint"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the multi-step pipeline (prompt generation, rendering, disk save), the exact cost model ($0.03 deposit, actual cost +20%, change returned), the payment flow via _payment_id (including Phase 3 and the need to monitor watch SSE), and the caveat that output is creative, not documentary. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool of this complexity.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is long and dense, mixing purpose, workflow, pricing, and payment instructions in a single block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the torrent of cost and payment details makes it less scannable than it could be. Some of this information (like the exact cost breakdown) might be better placed in annotations or a linked page, but it is all relevant, so it is not wasteful—just not tightly structured.

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?

Given the complexity (a paid, multi-phase workflow with prompt generation and rendering), the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: how to start, how to handle payment, what the result looks like, and that it saves to disk. It lacks an explicit statement of what happens if no inputs are provided (defaults are given in the schema), but it is otherwise comprehensive. The presence of an example URL and the note on creative vs. documentary use round it out.

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. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters interlock (e.g., changing both inputs yields a new destination) and by providing a concrete example of what a result looks like. It also clarifies the role of _payment_id in the payment workflow, which is not fully evident from the schema alone. This pushes it above the baseline.

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?

The description opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a landscape travel postcard illustration from a place and mood.' It names the output (landscape postcard) and the two inputs (place and mood), and even notes that changing both inputs yields a new destination. This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling image-generation tools, none of which are described as travel postcard makers.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives some usage guidance ('Change both inputs for a new destination') and explains the workflow (GLM Flash writes the prompt, Muse renders, returns a saved file). However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with any sibling or states when to prefer an alternative. No 'use X instead if...' is provided, so the agent must infer applicability from the postcard-specific wording.

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

All nanoodle 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