Seedream/Seedance MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('直接调用...生成图片') without any information about rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or performance characteristics. For an image generation API with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations. The structure is clear but minimal.

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?

Given the complexity of an image generation API, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or any behavioral characteristics. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is missing for proper tool understanding.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide examples, or add context about how parameters interact. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('直接调用' - directly call) and target resource ('火山方舟 Seedream API 生成图片' - Volcanic Ark Seedream API to generate images), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Ark-only' (though this is more of a platform restriction than functional differentiation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'generate-image' or 'text-to-image' in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'generate-image', 'text-to-image', and 'image-to-image' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool different or when it should be preferred. The 'Ark-only' note suggests platform restriction but doesn't help with tool selection decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.