get_generation_detailsRetrieve details for a specific image generation by its generation ID to inspect results and metadata.
Get details of a specific generation by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generation_id | Yes | The generation ID (from list_history) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it adds nothing about failure modes (invalid/nonexistent ID), whether the generation must be complete, or side effects. It essentially restates the tool name and relies on the output schema to explain what is returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema and fully documented parameter, the essentials are covered. Still, the description says nothing about error behavior or what 'details' encompasses, leaving minor gaps for an agent calling it cold.
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% and the single parameter is documented as coming from list_history, which is more informative than the description. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific generation') scoped by ID, which is unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like list_history, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only hint that IDs come from list_history appears in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no routing help from the text itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.