Transfers a selected stock image into your account image library and returns a stable original URL for image fields, avoiding fragile thumbnail links.
把 search_images 选中的一张照片通过部署的服务端转存到账号的图片库里，得到稳定的原图地址（比缩略图清晰，也不会因为图库改链接而失效）。返回的 url 直接填进图片字段。需要 DINGCARD_SERVER_URL（和账号）；没配置时不用转存，直接用 search_images 结果里的 url。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | search_images 结果里这一张的 id | |
| source | Yes | search_images 结果里的图库源 id（如 pixabay / openverse） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the key traits: the transfer happens server-side via a deployed service, it needs DINGCARD_SERVER_URL and an account, and it produces a stable original-resolution URL rather than a thumbnail. It does not address side effects such as duplicate imports or idempotency when the same photo is imported twice.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and its benefit, then the prerequisite and fallback. It is a single dense paragraph with parenthetical asides; every clause contributes, though it could be split for easier scanning.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (the url to place directly into the image field), the prerequisites, and the fallback path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameter descriptions already say the values come from search_images results. The description reinforces this ('search_images 选中的一张照片') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource ('转存到账号的图片库' – transfer a photo into the account's image library) and ties it to a concrete workflow starting point (a photo selected via search_images). It also explains the payoff (a stable original-image URL), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling search_images without opening either schema.
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?
It gives both the when and the when-not: use it after selecting a result from search_images, and skip it entirely if DINGCARD_SERVER_URL is not configured, in which case the url from search_images should be used directly. The prerequisite (DINGCARD_SERVER_URL plus account) is stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.