Generate a random anatomically plausible pose or select a random preset, with optional seed control for reproducibility and tags to narrow preset selection.
Generate a random anatomically-plausible pose or pick a random preset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | Random seed for reproducibility. | |
| tags | No | Filter tags to narrow preset selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It asserts 'anatomically-plausible' (a useful quality claim) but never says whether the result is applied to the current figure or merely returned, whether existing pose/keypoints are overwritten, or how the two advertised modes ('generate a pose' vs 'pick a preset') are selected.
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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. It is slightly dense in that the 'or pick a random preset' clause introduces a second mode without explaining it.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, for a tool that mutates or produces pose data. An agent still cannot tell what happens to the canvas/figure, what the return value is, or how the dual modes are triggered — significant gaps for a generation tool.
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 seed and tags are already documented in the schema. The description hints that tags relate to preset selection, but adds no detail about how tags interact with the two modes or what values are accepted for the nested tags object.
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: generate a random anatomically-plausible pose, with a secondary mode of picking a random preset. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names the pose siblings (design_set_figure_pose, design_add_pose_skeleton, design_advance_pose) to differentiate itself from them.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With many pose siblings in the list, the description should say to pick this one when you want variety rather than a specified pose; instead the choice is left entirely to inference from the word 'random'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.