Configure and lock image-generation parameters, including prompt, quality, aspect ratio, and output format, to ensure a consistent and controlled generation process.
Prepare and lock an image-generation route before execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | ||
| quality | No | balanced | |
| allow_paid | No | ||
| aspect_ratio | No | 1:1 | |
| output_format | No | png |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'lock' which implies a state change or reservation, but does not explain what gets locked, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. It also gives no indication of permissions, costs, or output characteristics.
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, but it is under-specified and fails to front-load any actionable information. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no value to the agent.
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 has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it mentions none of the five parameters (prompt, quality, allow_paid, aspect_ratio, output_format). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.
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 'Prepare and lock an image-generation route before execution' is vague and does not clearly state that this tool generates an image. The verb 'prepare and lock' suggests a pre-execution step rather than the actual generation, which conflicts with the tool's name 'generate_image'. It fails to specify the primary action and does not distinguish from sibling tools like generate_video.
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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no way to know if this is the right tool for image generation or a preparatory step, and no alternatives are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.