doubao-image-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

doubao_verify

Opens a Doubao window for manual slider verification to clear risk-control blocks (710022004/710022002) during image generation, then retry image creation after completing it.

Instructions

打开豆包窗口让你手动完成人机验证（滑块）。生图被风控（710022004 / 710022002）时调用它，拖完滑块再重试 doubao_image。

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": "doubao_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`account`	No
`message`	Yes
`nickname`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the critical behavior: the tool opens an interactive window and blocks on manual human action, which is exactly what an agent needs to know to avoid retrying in a loop. It does not say whether the call blocks until verification completes, how long it waits, or what happens if the user cancels, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences: the first explains the action, and the second explains the trigger and the recovery step. The error codes are front-loaded with the condition, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the trigger, the manual-interaction requirement, and the retry path. It could add failure or timeout handling, but that is a minor gap given that the output schema carries the return details.

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 names or formats to misinterpret, and the description correctly implies that the tool takes no input.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description gives a concrete verb and resource: it opens a Doubao window so a human can complete a slider CAPTCHA. It also makes clear that this tool is not image generation itself, distinguishing it from the doubao_image sibling that actually produces the images.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The trigger condition is explicit and mechanical: call this tool when image generation is risk-controlled with error 710022004 or 710022002. The follow-up step is also spelled out: drag the slider, then retry doubao_image. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use the tool or what to do next.

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

Deploy Server