Generates character makeup images first, then batch-produces character sheets once makeup is ready, preventing camera drift by ensuring consistent character references for each episode.
★一键:定妆图 + 设定图(推荐,产线标配)。设定图强依赖定妆图,故智能两阶段——有角色缺定妆图就先派定妆图并提示,定妆图齐了再调一次即批量出设定图。避免只出定妆图导致镜头漂移。图片步,按用量后付不欠费。轮询 get_characters 看 image/sheet_url 就绪;每调一次推进一步。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and covers two-stage execution, per-call advancement, dependency on portrait readiness, and pay-per-use billing. It stops short of describing failure or timeout behavior, which prevents a 5.
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 dense and front-loaded with the essential workflow, then adds readiness polling and billing details. Each clause contributes operational guidance, though the Chinese shorthand makes it less accessible than a structured English version.
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 multi-stage generation tool with no output schema, the description explains the workflow, dependency, readiness signal, and next steps well. The missing definition of episode_id and lack of error-handling guidance are the main gaps.
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 schema provides no description for the single required episode_id, and the description never mentions or explains this parameter. The workflow around characters implies an episode scope, but this is indirect and does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 combined deliverable: final-look images plus setting sheets, and labels it as the recommended production-line standard. This combined scope distinguishes it from the separate portrait-only and sheet-only sibling tools.
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?
It gives explicit sequencing logic: if characters lack final-look images, call once to generate them, then call again after they are ready to batch-produce setting sheets. It also names get_characters as the readiness check, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer the dedicated single-purpose siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.