Find the right Veida page for your image task—generator, editor, upscaler, background remover, prompt library, or pricing—so you can navigate directly to the needed tool.
List the Veida pages worth sending a person to — generator, editor, upscaler, background remover, prompt library, pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implicitly suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, whether results are live or static, or if any authentication is needed. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the specific page list following. Every element adds useful information, and there is no repetition or filler.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough context: it names the exact pages the caller should expect. It could be more complete by noting whether the output is page names, URLs, or both, but the enumeration makes the tool usable without further detail.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the invocation surface. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('Veida pages worth sending a person to'), then enumerates the exact pages included. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which perform actions like image generation or model listing, by framing this as a navigation/discovery tool.
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 phrase 'worth sending a person to' implies the tool is for finding pages to direct users to, which is a helpful context clue. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over siblings like generate_image, list_models, or free_tier_limits, nor does it give exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.