Generate pictures from text prompts with selectable aspect ratios, costing 3 credits per output.
Generate images from text prompts. Cost: 3 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Image description. | |
| aspect_ratio | No | Aspect ratio. | 1:1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / properties / aspect_ratio / descriptionPrevious value: -"1:1, 16:9, 9:16, or 4:3"New value: +"Aspect ratio."Input schema / properties / aspect_ratio / enumAdded value: +[
+ "1:1",
+ "16:9",
+ "9:16"
+]Input schema / properties / prompt / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text description of the image to generate"New value: +"Image description."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Disclosing "Cost: 3 credits" is genuine value not present in the schema, but the description omits output format (URL vs. bytes), generation latency, sync vs. async behavior, and any content-policy constraints.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Nothing here is redundant with the schema.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what the caller receives (image URL, base64 payload, job ID) and whether the operation is synchronous. It also leaves the 3-credit charge unbounded—no indication whether it is per-image or per-request.
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 100%, so both 'prompt' and 'aspect_ratio' (with its enum and default) are already documented structurally. The description adds no syntax, length, or prompt-engineering guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource: "Generate images from text prompts," which clarifies the ambiguous tool name 'images'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other generation siblings (sound-generate, tts, video-download), but the text-to-image purpose is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bg-remove or screenshot, which also produce images. The only usage-adjacent fact is the credit cost, which is about expense rather than selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.