Generate text through CLIProxy using Chat Completions or Responses APIs. Send a prompt with optional model, system instructions, and token limit to get text output while managing credit usage.
通过 CLIProxy 生成文本。支持 Chat Completions 和 Responses；调用可能消耗额度。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | No | ||
| model | No | CLIProxy 模型 ID；省略时使用配置中的默认模型 | |
| prompt | Yes | ||
| system | No | ||
| maxTokens | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag that the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the genuine trait '调用可能消耗额度' (may consume quota), which is a cost/side-effect caveat beyond the structured data, plus the API-mode support. This is useful but modest context.
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 short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the quota warning is appended efficiently. Every clause provides information that is not redundant with the annotations.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, return format, error behavior, and any guidance on choosing api or system; an agent would have to guess or rely on external knowledge.
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 only 20%—only the 'model' parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no explanation of prompt, system, api, or maxTokens, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters. The required prompt parameter is completely undocumented.
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 opens with '通过 CLIProxy 生成文本'—a specific verb (generate) and resource (text via CLIProxy). It also names the two supported API variants (Chat Completions and Responses), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_models and generate_image by semantic domain.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool names imply the distinction (text vs. image generation vs. model listing), but there is no statement about which tool to select for which task or when to avoid this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.