Generate a meme image URL from a template with custom top and bottom text for sharing or embedding.
Generate a meme image URL from a template, top text, and bottom text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template | No | Template id (default: fry). Use memegen_templates to list. | |
| top_text | No | Top line of the meme. | |
| bottom_text | No | Bottom line of the meme. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return artifact (a URL rather than a binary image), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown template id, rate limits, or URL persistence.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the operation and its inputs with zero padding. Nothing is repeated or wasted.
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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient: it names the output (a URL) in the absence of an output schema, and the schema covers the template default and listing route. Only behavioral edge cases and sibling routing are 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents template (including the fry default and the pointer to memegen_templates) and both text fields. The description merely restates the three inputs without adding format, length, or escaping semantics, so 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?
States a specific verb and artifact: 'Generate a meme image URL' plus the three inputs that drive it. An agent immediately knows this produces a meme image, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling memegen_templates, which the agent must discover from the schema instead.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions memegen_templates as the discovery step or any alternative. The only routing hint ('Use memegen_templates to list') lives in the schema's template property, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.