Generate and edit images from reference photos and text prompts using AADDYY MCP Server.
Google's state-of-the-art image generation and editing model. Transform and edit images based on reference photos and text prompts. (~55 credits)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | ||
| sync_mode | No | ||
| image_urls | Yes | ||
| num_images | No | ||
| aspect_ratio | No | ||
| output_format | No | ||
| limit_generations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost of ~55 credits, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about latency, sync_mode behavior (async vs sync), whether generations are reversible, or any auth/permission requirements for a generative operation.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with a clear lead about the model. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, given the 7 undocumented parameters.
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 7-parameter generative tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is substantially incomplete. Missing are parameter meanings (aspect ratio, image count, output format), the sync/async behavior, and any differentiation from aaddyy_nano_banana_2.
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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It loosely maps 'text prompts' to prompt and 'reference photos' to image_urls, but leaves num_images, aspect_ratio, output_format, sync_mode, and limit_generations completely unexplained.
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 names a specific model and states a clear verb+resource: generating and editing images from reference photos and text prompts. The mention of 'reference photos' usefully distinguishes it from pure text-to-image siblings, but it never differentiates itself from the obvious sibling aaddyy_nano_banana_2 or from aaddyy_image_generator.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many image-related siblings (nano_banana_2, ghibli_generator, product_photo_studio, image_generator). Usage is only implied by 'transform and edit images'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.