Generate multiple Perchance images in one batch by submitting an array of prompts. Each prompt produces an image, streamlining bulk creation.
Generate multiple images via lite mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| prompts | Yes | ||
| save_dir | No | ||
| art_style | No | ||
| resolution | No | 512x512 | |
| guidance_scale | No | ||
| negative_prompt | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explain what 'lite mode' means, how batching behaves, whether images are saved to disk, or any output/error side effects. The description only restates the core action without behavioral detail.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete; 'lite mode' introduces a term with no explanation.
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?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The presence of an output schema helps with return understanding, but the ambiguous 'lite mode' and lack of behavioral guidance leave significant gaps.
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%, and the description mentions no parameters. 'Multiple images' loosely maps to the prompts array, but the description adds no meaning for seed, save_dir, art_style, resolution, guidance_scale, or negative_prompt, leaving the agent without the needed parameter guidance.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('multiple images via lite mode'), making it clear this is a batch generation tool and distinguishing it from the sibling generate_image. However, 'lite mode' is left undefined, so the exact nature of the tool is somewhat ambiguous.
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 word 'multiple' implies this tool is for batch generation compared to a single-image sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.