Generate images from text prompts using PdhAPI, returning local files and previews. Uses paid API quota; avoid automatic retries after timeout.
Generate images using PdhAPI. This uses paid API quota. Returns local files and image previews. Do not retry automatically after a timeout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| size | No | 1024x1024 | |
| model | No | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| quality | No | ||
| 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?
The description reveals that calls consume paid API quota, which signals non-idempotency and cost, and that output is local files and previews. It also warns against automatic retries after timeout, adding operational behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, cost, output, and retry guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and has no wasted words.
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 incomplete for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema: it doesn't explain parameter meanings, response structure, or how to access the local files/previews. It covers cost and retry but misses critical invocation details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it doesn't mention any of the 7 parameters. Names like n, response_format, and quality are left to the agent's guesses, so the description adds no semantic value.
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 states a specific action (generate images) and resource (PdhAPI). The verb 'generate' distinguishes it from the sibling edit/batch tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools. Purpose is clear enough for an agent.
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 on when to use this tool vs the sibling tools (image_edit, image_multi_reference, image_batch_edit). The only usage note is a retry policy, which is not about tool selection. Agents are left to infer from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.