Retrieve a previously generated image inline by job and image ID, so you can view, verify, or reuse outputs from this bridge without regenerating them. Limited to 4 MiB per image.
Return a previously generated image inline using job and image IDs. Only reads images produced by this bridge, up to 4 MiB per image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| image_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are returned inline (not as a link), only bridge-produced images are readable, and there is a 4 MiB per-image ceiling — a constraint an agent cannot see anywhere else.
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 sentences, zero padding, with the core action and the retrieval identifiers front-loaded and the constraints trailing. Nothing is repeated from the schema or 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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (image content inline) and the two hard limits (bridge-origin, 4 MiB). It omits failure behavior for unknown or expired IDs, which is the only meaningful 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 carry parameter meaning and it does not. It names 'job and image IDs' but never explains where those IDs come from (presumably chatgpt_generate_image or chatgpt_job), that both are required, or what the identifier format is — even though the schema imposes a strict pattern.
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 ('Return a previously generated image inline') plus the identifiers used to address it. The word 'previously' implicitly separates it from the sibling chatgpt_generate_image, but the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated outright.
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 'Only reads images produced by this bridge' clause tells the agent the scope of valid inputs, which is useful. However, it never says when to call this versus chatgpt_generate_image or chatgpt_job, and gives no guidance on what to do if the image was not produced here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.