list_generatorsLists all 3D Texel AI generators, showing which run via API with parameters and prices, and which are website-only with URLs.
All 3D Texel AI generators: which ones run through this API (with parameters and price examples) and which ones are website-only (with their URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing what the listing actually contains: API parameters, price examples, and URLs for website-only generators. It does not mention pagination or output format, but with no output schema the content disclosure is valuable.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the two result categories. It is slightly dense as a run-on, but every clause carries information about the returned content.
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 parameterless, read-only catalog call with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how entries are categorized. The remaining gap is that it doesn't state the return shape or ordering, which is minor for this tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description introduces no parameter concepts because none exist, and none are needed.
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 verb (list) and resource (3D Texel AI generators) and further splits it into API-runnable vs website-only, which is genuinely informative. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_generations or generate_texture, but the catalog purpose is unambiguous from the name and text.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition that selects this tool over list_generations or generate_texture, and no mention of prerequisites. The only hint of usage is the implicit 'discover generators' framing, which is not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.