Insert a free copyright-free stock image or cutout onto a canvas using a search query, direct image URL, or asset key. Set custom layer name and target width.
Adds a free copyright-free stock image or cutout to the canvas directly by search query, image URL, or asset key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Direct image URL or search keyword | |
| name | No | Custom layer name | |
| scaleToWidth | No | Target width in pixels |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the asset is 'free copyright-free' stock, but says nothing about whether it network-fetches, whether it creates a new layer or replaces selection, what happens on failure, or any auth/rate-limit 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and input modes come first. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the trailing enumeration is slightly dense.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source, and it stops short of explaining the result (new layer?) or how scaleToWidth interacts with the fetched asset. It covers enough to identify the tool but not enough to call it confidently in edge cases.
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 the baseline is 3. The description's three modes (search query, image URL, asset key) roughly map onto the 'url' parameter's 'Direct image URL or search keyword' description, but the 'asset key' mode is not clearly represented in the schema, leaving a minor ambiguity rather than added clarity.
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 and resource ('Adds a ... stock image or cutout to the canvas') and enumerates three input modes. It is clear what the tool does, but does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as elements_search, assets_list_stock_pngs, or image_add.
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 'directly' implies this places content on the canvas in one step, contrasting implicitly with searching first via elements_search and then adding. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given for the many sibling adders (image_add, sticker_add, svg_add).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.