Zhenzhen Image MCP

get_model_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get free local model selection advice and configuration status by checking if required API keys exist, without displaying keys or contacting cloud services.

Instructions

免费本地模型选择建议和配置状态；只检查密钥是否存在，不显示密钥、不请求云端。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_model_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`advice`	Yes
`models`	Yes
`base_url`	Yes
`output_dir`	Yes
`key_present`	Yes
`key_variable`	Yes
`default_group`	Yes
`official_declaration`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it only checks whether a key exists, never displays the key, and never calls the cloud – useful privacy/offline context beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the capability and then the behavioral guarantees. Every clause earns its place; only minor readability cost from packing two ideas into one sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a zero-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose and the key behavioral constraints; only explicit usage guidance is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and needs no elaboration. The description correctly focuses on outcome behavior rather than invented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete deliverable: free local model selection suggestions plus configuration status. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling image-generation tools, though the wording ('guide') is slightly abstract about exactly what content is returned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is for choosing/configuring a local model, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no named alternative or prerequisite. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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

Deploy Server