star_maskCreates a star mask from an image to protect stars during stretches and sharpening, returning a mask ID for use with apply_mask to target non-star areas.
StarMask process → new mask view (mask_id). Use with apply_mask to protect stars during stretches/sharpening.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| layers | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| mask_id | No | ||
| shadows | No | ||
| midtones | No | ||
| smoothness | No | ||
| large_growth | No | ||
| small_growth | No | ||
| noise_threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, so the description needs to clarify side effects. 'New mask view (mask_id)' tells the agent that a new resource is created, but it does not disclose state changes, dependencies on existing images, or what happens to existing masks. This is thin for a mutating operation.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the primary outcome is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description covers the high-level purpose and use case but omits nearly all parameter semantics and output details. For a tool with a nested params object and nine undocumented parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly with meaningful settings.
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?
With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions mask_id, and the other nine parameters such as shadows, midtones, smoothness, and noise_threshold are completely unexplained. This is a major gap.
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 states the tool produces a new mask view with a mask_id, and identifies it as StarMask. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like apply_mask or mask_info, though 'StarMask process' is slightly noun-like rather than a strong verb phrase.
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 description says to use this tool with apply_mask to protect stars during stretches or sharpening. This gives a clear context for when it is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond apply_mask.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.