Bangumi MCP

get_person_image

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a person's image URL by specifying the person ID and desired image size (small, grid, large, or medium) from Bangumi.

Instructions

获取人物图片 URL

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "person_id": "<person_id>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "get_person_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`person_id`	Yes	人物ID
`type`	Yes	大小 {small\|grid\|large\|medium}

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as potential errors (e.g., person not found) or return format details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one short phrase). While it is front-loaded and efficient, it is so brief that it adds minimal value beyond the tool name. A slightly more informative description would earn a higher score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is still too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a URL string) or any prerequisites. For an agent to correctly select this tool among many image tools, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%; both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '获取人物图片 URL' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a person's image URL. The tool name and description together specify the resource (person) and action (get image URL). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling image tools like get_character_image or get_subject_image, though the name implies the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling image tools, an agent would benefit from knowing that this tool is for person images specifically, but no such hint is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server