Create professional logos by choosing modern, minimal, or vintage styles, then customize colors and backgrounds to match your brand.
Generate professional, high-quality logos in seconds. Choose from multiple styles like modern, minimal, or vintage. Customize colors and backgrounds to perfectly match your brand. (~25 credits)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| keyword | Yes | ||
| background | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ~25 credit cost, which is useful, but says nothing about output format (URL? file?), rate limits, or whether generation is synchronous.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The credit note at the end is a minor but acceptable addition.
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 4-parameter generative tool with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits parameter meaning and return behavior, leaving key gaps for correct invocation.
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 0% and the description only loosely implies 'color' and 'background' semantics. It never explains the 'keyword' parameter (the sole required field) or the 'type' parameter, leaving all four undocumented.
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+resource ('Generate professional logos') and enumerates customizations (styles, colors, backgrounds), making it distinguishable from siblings like aaddyy_image_generator or aaddyy_tshirt_designer.
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 guidance on when to use this versus aaddyy_image_generator, aaddyy_album_cover_generator, or other design siblings, and no preconditions stated. The credit cost is mentioned but not framed as a decision criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.