2dai-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Generate more like a creation

generate_similar

Re-run a previous creation with its original parameters to generate a fresh version. Simply provide the creation ID to produce a similar result without reconstructing prompts or settings.

Instructions

Re-run an existing creation — the SERVER re-derives the original tool's parameters (prompt, style, quality, dimensions, references) from the stored row and submits a fresh generation. This SPENDS the account's credit at the usual price. The natural "make more like this one" verb: no parameters to reconstruct. Raw uploads and wallpaper-resize outputs can't be re-derived and are refused. Rapid identical calls within ~5s are deduplicated server-side, never double-charged.

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": {
      "creationId": "<creationId>"
    },
    "name": "generate_similar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wait`	No	Block until ready (default true). Set false to get a queueId immediately.
`creationId`	Yes	The creation to re-run — from an earlier generation or list_creations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.3Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the operation spends account credit, deduplicates rapid identical calls within ~5s, and refuses non-derivable types. This adds valuable behavioral context for an agent assessing side effects and costs.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: mechanism, cost, and dedup/refusals. It front-loads the primary action and avoids filler or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's behavior (re-derivation, credit cost, dedup, refusals) without an output schema. It does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., generation ID or queueId), but the wait parameter hints at queue behavior, so the gap is minor.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides full descriptions for creationId and wait, with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond restating that parameters are re-derived, so it neither improves nor harms understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Re-run an existing creation' with the server re-deriving all original parameters. It specifies the resource (an existing creation) and the verb (re-run/fresh generation), distinguishing it from generation tools that create new items.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear when-to-use context ('natural make more like this one verb') and explicit exclusions ('Raw uploads and wallpaper-resize outputs... refused'). It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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