Generate images from text prompts using DALL-E, with controls for model, size, style, and quality.
Generate images from a text prompt using DALL-E.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | Number of images to generate | |
| size | No | 1024x1024, 1792x1024, or 1024x1792 for DALL-E 3 | |
| model | No | dall-e-3 or dall-e-2 (default: dall-e-3) | |
| style | No | natural or vivid (DALL-E 3 only) | |
| prompt | Yes | ||
| api_key | Yes | ||
| quality | No | standard or hd (DALL-E 3 only) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / response_formatRemoved value: -{
- "description": "url or b64_json (default: url)",
- "enum": [
- "url",
- "b64_json"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states generation but doesn't disclose that this is a paid external API call, that an api_key is required, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a cost-incurring mutation, this is a significant gap.
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 efficient sentence with no waste, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity and missing details about required api_key.
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?
With 7 parameters including a required undocumented api_key, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain API key requirements, cost/model implications, and output format given these structured-field gaps.
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 71%, but the two required parameters (api_key and prompt) are undocumented in the schema and the description adds no meaning for them beyond restating 'text prompt' and mentioning DALL-E. Size, n, quality, and style are left entirely to the schema.
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 (generate), resource (images), and method (DALL-E), and clearly implies text-to-image generation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like higgsfield_generate_image or stability_text_to_image, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many image-generation siblings, no prerequisitives or notes about api_key handling. The agent gets no help choosing between this and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.