no-api-media

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List the AI sites this server can drive

providers_list

Lists built-in and custom media providers from ~/.no-api-media/providers, showing which images and videos each can generate.

Instructions

Built-in providers plus JSON specs from ~/.no-api-media/providers. Shows what each can make.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "providers_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.1Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data sources (built-in plus JSON specs from ~/.no-api-media/providers), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe what is returned, whether it is always safe/read-only, or how missing/custom specs are handled.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The key source information is front-loaded, though the second sentence is somewhat vague about what 'what each can make' entails.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should probably explain the return shape—for example, provider names and capabilities. It hints at capabilities ('what each can make') but does not fully describe the returned structure, leaving an agent to infer the output.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly does not pretend otherwise.

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 clearly states the resource being listed (built-in providers plus JSON specs from a specific path) and that each entry shows what it can make. The tool is understandable as a provider inventory, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as accounts_status or usage_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like accounts_status or accounts_login. The implied use case is discovering available providers, but no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints are provided.

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