25+ AI media generation tools — FLUX Pro, Ideogram v3, Recraft v3, Stable Diffusion XL, MiniMax video, and Kokoro TTS. Images, video, and audio from one server. $0.01/call.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Six of eight tools are for image generation, with overlapping capabilities and only subtle differentiators (speed, quality, text rendering). An agent cannot easily determine which model to use for a generic image generation request, leading to high ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same snake_case pattern using provider_model format (e.g., black_forest_labs_flux_pro, stability_ai_sdxl). The convention is uniform across the entire set, making it predictable and easy to parse.
The count of 8 tools is within the ideal range for a media studio, but the heavy redundancy of image generation models makes the set slightly bloated. Still, the overall scope is clear and manageable.
The tool surface covers the primary media generation modalities—image, video, and text-to-speech—which aligns with the 'Media Studio' purpose. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no image editing or audio-to-text), but core generation workflows are well covered.
black_forest_labs_flux_devCInspectFLUX Dev — balanced quality and speed for image generation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | Random seed. Set for reproducible generation | |
| image | No | Input image for image to image mode. The aspect ratio of your output will match this image | |
| prompt | Yes | Prompt for generated image | |
| go_fast | No | Run faster predictions with model optimized for speed (currently fp8 quantized); disable to run in original bf16. Note that outputs will not be deterministic when this is enabled, even if you set a seed. | |
| guidance | No | Guidance for generated image | |
| megapixels | No | Approximate number of megapixels for generated image | 1 |
| num_outputs | No | Number of outputs to generate | |
| aspect_ratio | No | Aspect ratio for the generated image | 1:1 |
| output_format | No | Format of the output images | webp |
| output_quality | No | Quality when saving the output images, from 0 to 100. 100 is best quality, 0 is lowest quality. Not relevant for .png outputs | |
| prompt_strength | No | Prompt strength when using img2img. 1.0 corresponds to full destruction of information in image | |
| num_inference_steps | No | Number of denoising steps. Recommended range is 28-50, and lower number of steps produce lower quality outputs, faster. | |
| disable_safety_checker | No | Disable safety checker for generated images. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers only a vague assertion about quality/speed balance and provides no information about side effects, safety, determinism, or other behavioral traits. The extensive schema details are not reflected in the description, leaving behavior opaque.
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 no wasted words, earning 'conciseness' credit. However, it is also under-specified to the point of being a tagline rather than useful documentation. It is not misleading, but it lacks the structure to convey necessary context.
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?
For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context. It does not explain return values, usage prerequisites, or any behavior beyond a vague quality/speed balance. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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 input schema fully describes all 13 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient detail for an agent to understand each parameter's purpose.
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 identifies the tool as an image generation model and positions it with a quality/speed trade-off. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate', the resource and purpose are unambiguous. The mention of 'balanced quality and speed' helps distinguish it from sibling models despite not naming them.
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?
The phrase 'balanced quality and speed' implicitly suggests a middle-ground use case between faster and higher-quality alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like flux_pro or flux_schnell. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
black_forest_labs_flux_proCInspectFLUX 1.1 Pro — highest quality photorealistic image generation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | Random seed. Set for reproducible generation | |
| width | No | Width of the generated image in text-to-image mode. Only used when aspect_ratio=custom. Must be a multiple of 32 (if it's not, it will be rounded to nearest multiple of 32). Note: Ignored in img2img and inpainting modes. | |
| height | No | Height of the generated image in text-to-image mode. Only used when aspect_ratio=custom. Must be a multiple of 32 (if it's not, it will be rounded to nearest multiple of 32). Note: Ignored in img2img and inpainting modes. | |
| prompt | Yes | Text prompt for image generation | |
| aspect_ratio | No | Aspect ratio for the generated image | 1:1 |
| image_prompt | No | Image to use with Flux Redux. This is used together with the text prompt to guide the generation towards the composition of the image_prompt. Must be jpeg, png, gif, or webp. | |
| output_format | No | Format of the output images. | webp |
| output_quality | No | Quality when saving the output images, from 0 to 100. 100 is best quality, 0 is lowest quality. Not relevant for .png outputs | |
| safety_tolerance | No | Safety tolerance, 1 is most strict and 6 is most permissive | |
| prompt_upsampling | No | Automatically modify the prompt for more creative generation |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'image generation' without disclosing safety settings, output formats, or side effects. It does not mention the ability to work with image prompts or other behavioral nuances.
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 extremely concise, using a single phrase that communicates the model version and capability. It is not a tautology, though it may be too brief to be considered fully structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too minimal. It fails to provide any context about what the output looks like, when to use this variant, or any caveats, making it inadequate for an AI agent to make informed decisions.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is already comprehensive.
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 tool's purpose as photorealistic image generation and distinguishes it as a high-quality variant of FLUX. However, it is not explicit about the text-to-image functionality, though that is implied by the required prompt parameter.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like black_forest_labs_flux_dev or ideogram_v3. It merely claims highest quality photorealistic generation, which implies a use case but offers no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
black_forest_labs_flux_schnellBInspectFLUX Schnell — fastest image generation, 1-4 steps
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | Random seed. Set for reproducible generation | |
| prompt | Yes | Prompt for generated image | |
| go_fast | No | Run faster predictions with model optimized for speed (currently fp8 quantized); disable to run in original bf16. Note that outputs will not be deterministic when this is enabled, even if you set a seed. | |
| megapixels | No | Approximate number of megapixels for generated image | 1 |
| num_outputs | No | Number of outputs to generate | |
| aspect_ratio | No | Aspect ratio for the generated image | 1:1 |
| output_format | No | Format of the output images | webp |
| output_quality | No | Quality when saving the output images, from 0 to 100. 100 is best quality, 0 is lowest quality. Not relevant for .png outputs | |
| num_inference_steps | No | Number of denoising steps. 4 is recommended, and lower number of steps produce lower quality outputs, faster. | |
| disable_safety_checker | No | Disable safety checker for generated images. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions speed and step count, but does not disclose non-determinism (e.g., go_fast's fp8 randomness), safety checker behavior, output details, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a generation tool.
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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information (model name, function, speed advantage) and is appropriately structured as a tagline.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the one-line description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, mention the output as an image, hint at parameter nuances like safety checker or reproducibility, or provide context for how this model compares to siblings beyond speed. The description leaves many operational aspects unaddressed.
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 input schema covers all 10 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 tool generates images ('image generation') and identifies the specific model variant (FLUX Schnell) with a distinguishing attribute ('fastest'). It implies a text-to-image function and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing speed, though it does not explicitly mention 'generate from prompt'.
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?
The description implies use when speed is a priority ('fastest image generation, 1-4 steps'), but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of quality trade-offs or use cases. It is an implied usage hint rather than clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ideogram_v3CInspectIdeogram v3 Quality — AI image generation with best-in-class text rendering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mask | No | A black and white image. Black pixels are inpainted, white pixels are preserved. The mask will be resized to match the image size. | |
| seed | No | Random seed. Set for reproducible generation | |
| image | No | An image file to use for inpainting. You must also use a mask. | |
| prompt | Yes | Text prompt for image generation | |
| resolution | No | Resolution. Overrides aspect ratio. Ignored if an inpainting image is given. | None |
| style_type | No | The styles help define the specific aesthetic of the image you want to generate. | None |
| aspect_ratio | No | Aspect ratio. Ignored if a resolution or inpainting image is given. | 1:1 |
| style_preset | No | Apply a predefined artistic style to the generated image (V3 models only). | None |
| magic_prompt_option | No | Magic Prompt will interpret your prompt and optimize it to maximize variety and quality of the images generated. You can also use it to write prompts in different languages. | Auto |
| style_reference_images | No | A list of images to use as style references. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only offers a marketing claim about text rendering. It omits key behaviors like inpainting support, style presets, aspect ratio handling, and magic prompt features, which are significant capabilities.
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, which is concise and front-loaded, but the content is mostly a tagline. The 'best-in-class text rendering' phrase is not operational guidance, so the description under-delivers for the tool's complexity, though it is not as sparse as a single verb.
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?
For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention the inpainting/editing capabilities, style options, or other configurable aspects, leaving the agent without a complete picture of the tool's functionality.
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 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail—'best-in-class text rendering' does not clarify any parameter usage—so it remains at baseline.
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 it is an AI image generation tool, with a specific focus on text rendering. It distinguishes itself from some siblings by highlighting 'best-in-class text rendering', though it could more explicitly differentiate from other image models like Flux or Recraft.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely says 'AI image generation' without indicating specific use cases, such as text-heavy imagery or inpainting scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kokoro_ttsBInspectKokoro 82M — fast, natural-sounding text-to-speech in multiple voices
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text input (long text is automatically split) | |
| speed | No | Speech speed multiplier (0.5 = half speed, 2.0 = double speed) | |
| voice | No | Voice to use for synthesis | af_bella |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'fast, natural-sounding', which are subjective quality claims, and fails to disclose output format, limitations, side effects, or any unobservable behavior. An AI agent would be unaware that this tool likely returns audio data.
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, front-loaded sentence that is not bloated. However, the adjectives 'fast, natural-sounding' are subjective and do not contribute functional clarity, so it is concise but not maximally informative per word.
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 no output schema and only a minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., audio file, URL), nor does it provide usage context beyond the generic 'text-to-speech' label. Given that sibling tools are all image/video, more operational detail is needed.
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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (text, speed, voice) with descriptions, defaults, and ranges, covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as 'text-to-speech', which specifies the core function, and mentions 'multiple voices' to indicate scope. It distinguishes itself from the image/video generation siblings, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'synthesize' or 'generate', making it slightly less precise than ideal.
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?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. The sibling tools are all image/video generators, which implies this is the audio counterpart, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided, leaving usage to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
minimax_video_01AInspectVideo-01 — generate short cinematic videos from text prompts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Text prompt for generation | |
| prompt_optimizer | No | Use prompt optimizer | |
| first_frame_image | No | First frame image for video generation. The output video will have the same aspect ratio as this image. | |
| subject_reference | No | An optional character reference image to use as the subject in the generated video (this will use the S2V-01 model) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately states the core behavior but omits significant details such as model differences (S2V-01), aspect ratio handling, or limitations like 'short' video length.
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, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and easy to parse. It could provide more context, but it is not overly verbose.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the different video generation modes (e.g., first frame, subject reference) or what the user should expect from the output, making it inadequate for full understanding.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.
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?
Description clearly states the tool generates short cinematic videos from text prompts, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are image generators or TTS.
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?
Usage is implied by being the only video generation tool, but no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or how to choose between first_frame_image and subject_reference is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recraft_v3CInspectRecraft v3 — professional design-quality image generation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Width and height of the generated image. Size is ignored if an aspect ratio is set. | 1024x1024 |
| style | No | Style of the generated image. | any |
| prompt | Yes | Text prompt for image generation | |
| aspect_ratio | No | Aspect ratio of the generated image | Not set |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only asserts a quality level and offers no details about output format, potential limitations, or operational behavior. This is insufficient for a generation tool that could return varied output types.
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 concise sentence that states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning full marks for conciseness and structure despite being short.
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?
The description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks information about the output format (URL, binary, etc.), does not explain how it differs from sibling image tools, and omits usage context. The schema covers parameters but not the broader behavioral or selection context, leaving significant gaps.
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 100%, with all four parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter clearly, including the interaction between size and aspect_ratio.
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 'professional design-quality image generation' clearly identifies the tool as an image generator, with 'generation' as the verb and 'image' as the resource. It adds a quality differentiator ('professional design-quality') that loosely distinguishes it from other image tools, though it does not explicitly compare to siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis to decide between Recraft v3 and other image generators like FLUX or Ideogram.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stability_ai_sdxlCInspectSDXL — high-resolution image generation with fine-grained control
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mask | No | Input mask for inpaint mode. Black areas will be preserved, white areas will be inpainted. | |
| seed | No | Random seed. Leave blank to randomize the seed | |
| image | No | Input image for img2img or inpaint mode | |
| width | No | Width of output image | |
| height | No | Height of output image | |
| prompt | No | Input prompt | An astronaut riding a rainbow unicorn |
| refine | No | Which refine style to use | no_refiner |
| scheduler | No | scheduler | K_EULER |
| lora_scale | No | LoRA additive scale. Only applicable on trained models. | |
| num_outputs | No | Number of images to output. | |
| refine_steps | No | For base_image_refiner, the number of steps to refine, defaults to num_inference_steps | |
| guidance_scale | No | Scale for classifier-free guidance | |
| apply_watermark | No | Applies a watermark to enable determining if an image is generated in downstream applications. If you have other provisions for generating or deploying images safely, you can use this to disable watermarking. | |
| high_noise_frac | No | For expert_ensemble_refiner, the fraction of noise to use | |
| negative_prompt | No | Input Negative Prompt | |
| prompt_strength | No | Prompt strength when using img2img / inpaint. 1.0 corresponds to full destruction of information in image | |
| replicate_weights | No | Replicate LoRA weights to use. Leave blank to use the default weights. | |
| num_inference_steps | No | Number of denoising steps | |
| disable_safety_checker | No | Disable safety checker for generated images. This feature is only available through the API. See [https://replicate.com/docs/how-does-replicate-work#safety](https://replicate.com/docs/how-does-replicate-work#safety) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, yet it offers only a vague 'fine-grained control' claim. It fails to mention key behaviors such as the default safety checker, watermarking, inpainting/img2img modes, or the effect of prompt_strength on information destruction., leaving the agent without critical operational knowledge.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the tool and its primary value proposition without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
This is a complex tool with 19 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. It doesn't explain the various generation modes, safety/watermark controls, return format, or any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in varied scenarios.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides detailed explanations for all 19 parameters, including mode-specific fields like mask and prompt_strength. The description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
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 that this tool generates high-resolution images with fine-grained control, and the name 'SDXL' identifies the specific model. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling image-generation tools like black_forest_labs_flux_dev or ideogram_v3, missing an opportunity to highlight unique capabilities.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose between SDXL and sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
