Edit a local PNG/JPEG/WebP image by providing a text prompt; the tool uploads the image to PdhAPI and returns the edited version.
Edit one local PNG/JPEG/WebP through PdhAPI. The reference image is uploaded. Uses paid quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| size | No | 1024x1024 | |
| model | No | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| quality | No | ||
| image_path | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | b64_json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is already implied, but the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the reference image is uploaded and the operation consumes paid quota. This is useful cost and data-flow information that is not present in the structured metadata.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information: the operation, the upload behavior, and the cost implication.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too sparse. It lacks any information about the editing prompt, return format, how the image is processed, or how parameters interact. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly based solely on the description.
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%, and the description does not compensate. It only vaguely refers to a 'reference image', which maps loosely to image_path, but all other parameters (prompt, size, n, model, quality, response_format, api_key) remain completely unexplained. This is a severe gap for a tool with 8 parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit one local PNG/JPEG/WebP through PdhAPI.' It clearly identifies the tool's core function and hints at single-image scope with 'one local', which loosely distinguishes it from batch and multi-reference siblings. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.
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 given for when to use image_edit versus image_generate, image_batch_edit, or image_multi_reference. The note about a reference image being uploaded implies editing an existing image, but there is no explicit selection rule or exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.