Inpaint masked image regions to replace clothes, faces, hair, background, or fix anatomy.
Inpaint / redraw specific parts of an image using a mask. Allows replacing clothes, faces, hair, background or fixing anatomy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| model | No | nai-diffusion-5-full | |
| scale | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| sampler | No | k_euler_ancestral | |
| strength | No | ||
| mask_path | Yes | ||
| image_path | Yes | ||
| output_dir | No | ||
| negative_prompt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the high-level redrawing operation. It does not explain output behavior, whether images are written to output_dir, how the mask is interpreted, or any side effects or requirements.
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 filler. The concrete examples of use cases add useful information without bloating the text.
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 complex tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin for an agent to confidently select and invoke it correctly. It lacks guidance on required inputs, output behavior, parameter roles, and how it differs from closely related siblings.
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 needed to compensate by explaining the 11 parameters, but it only indirectly hints at image, mask, and prompt through the phrase 'using a mask'. It adds no meaning for seed, scale, steps, sampler, strength, negative_prompt, model, or output_dir, leaving the bare schema property names to carry the semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inpaint / redraw') and resource ('specific parts of an image using a mask') and gives concrete use cases like replacing clothes, faces, hair, background, or fixing anatomy. It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like novelai_img2img or novelai_generate_image.
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 'specific parts of an image using a mask' implies when this tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over novelai_img2img, novelai_generate_image, or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing hints are provided; the agent must infer the use case from the name and mask requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.