Generate a unique robot, monster, cat, or human avatar from any text seed, with selectable style, background, and pixel size for profile images or placeholders.
Generate a unique robot/monster/cat avatar from any text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bg | No | Background: bg1 or bg2 | |
| set | No | Style: set1 (robots), set2 (monsters), set3 (heads), set4 (cats), set5 (humans) | |
| size | No | Size in pixels (default 300) | |
| text | No | Text seed for the avatar (default robot) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It conveys determinism ('unique ... from any text'), implying the text acts as a stable seed, which is genuinely useful context. It omits that this returns a URL rather than image bytes and says nothing about auth, rate limits, or default behavior when text is omitted.
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 with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple generation tool. It is perhaps under-specified rather than over-long, but structure itself is clean.
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 four-optional-parameter image tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not state that the result is a URL, nor the default seed ('robot') or default size, leaving the agent to read the schema for essentials.
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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the bg, set, size, or text parameters beyond what the schema already documents, and it does not even enumerate the style options the schema lists.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('avatar') with the text-seed mechanism, which is clearer than most sibling image tools. However, it names only three of the five styles available in the schema (robots/monsters/cat, omitting heads/humans) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like avatar_url or multiavatar_generate.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not tell the agent how to pick between this, avatar_url, multiavatar_generate, or the placeholder image tools, all of which generate images from inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.