Seedream/Seedance MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the model provider and exclusivity ('Ark-only'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a generative AI tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 - a single Chinese sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and platform specificity. There's no wasted language or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information: tool purpose and model provider.

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 complex image generation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address critical contextual information such as output format (image URL? binary data?), error handling, rate limits, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more comprehensive guidance.

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?

The description provides no parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the input schema, which has 100% coverage. All 7 parameters (prompt, ratio, style, model, model_version, image_urls, add_watermark) are well-described in the schema with clear descriptions and enums where applicable. The description adds no additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or interactions.

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 tool's purpose: '生成图片' (generate images) using the '火山方舟 Seedream 模型' (Volcano Ark Seedream model). It specifies the model provider and includes '(Ark-only)' to indicate exclusivity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate-image' or 'generate-img-seedream4', which appear to offer similar functionality.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions '(Ark-only)' which suggests this tool is specific to the Volcano Ark platform, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like 'generate-image' or 'generate-img-seedream4'. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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