Create prop design sheets for AI-generated concept art. Input a prop ID to receive detailed setting images, with usage-based billing charged after production.
给道具 AI 出设定图。图片步,按用量后付不欠费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prop_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It fails to mention whether generation is asynchronous, whether it mutates data, what inputs are required beyond prop_id, or any side effects. The payment phrase '按用量后付不欠费' is unrelated to tool behavior and confusing.
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 short but includes an unclear fragment '图片步' and an irrelevant billing note, which wastes the little space available. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.
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?
With one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool, what it returns, or how it differs from similar prop-related tools.
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% and the description provides no explanation of prop_id or how it relates to the generated image. The sole parameter is left entirely undocumented in human-readable terms.
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 phrase '给道具 AI 出设定图' indicates the tool generates a setting/concept image for props, which is a specific verb+resource action and loosely distinguishable from siblings like generate_character_sheet and upload_prop_sheet. However, the wording is terse and the meaning of '道具 AI' is ambiguous, so it is not fully clear.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_prop_sheet, generate_product_sheet, or get_props. The description does not mention any distinguishing use case or selection criteria, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.