Inspect image inputs on Fill, Fill Effect, Generator, or Filter sources by UID and optional channel to verify procedural setup before tuning layers or baking.
Inspect image inputs on Fill, Fill Effect, Generator, or Filter sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| channel | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid uids, or side effects; beyond the verb there is essentially no behavioral context.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions the definition omits critical parameter meaning and usage context. The agent knows what domain this touches but not how to call it correctly.
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% for two parameters, and the description never mentions 'uid' or 'channel'. The channel selector in particular is undocumented, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and valid values.
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?
States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (image inputs) with a scoped list of source types (Fill, Fill Effect, Generator, Filter). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_fill_sources or get_fill_parameters, and the 'procedural inputs' vs. 'image inputs' terminology is slightly loose.
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 guidance on when to call this versus get_fill_sources or get_fill_parameters, no prerequisites (e.g., project/layer must exist), and no exclusions. The source-type list implies scope but does not route the agent among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.