Creates an EPS image from an HTTPS URL and returns the image ID, location, and complete image payload with EPS URLs. Requires sell.inventory permission.
Create an EPS image from an HTTPS URL. Returns imageId, Location and the complete image payload, including EPS URLs. Requires sell.inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imageUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent with the description's 'Create' wording. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (sell.inventory) and the return payload shape (imageId, Location, complete image payload including EPS URLs), which is especially helpful since no output schema is present.
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 concise sentences deliver the core action, return value summary, and permission requirement with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core inputs, outputs, and authorization context. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not mention usage boundaries or potential side effects beyond creating an image, but the simplicity of the tool means this is a minor gap.
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 must help clarify imageUrl. It does confirm the URL must be HTTPS and is the source for creating the EPS image, but the schema already enforces HTTPS via pattern. It does not explain expected image formats, accessibility requirements, or other constraints that would fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 action (create) and resource (EPS image from an HTTPS URL), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ebay_create_document_from_url or ebay_upload_images, but the resource type 'image' versus 'document' gives reasonable distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_upload_images or ebay_create_document_from_url. It mentions a permission requirement (sell.inventory) but does not explain when this tool is preferred or when a sibling should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.