cloudinary_variantsGenerate Cloudinary delivery URLs for common platform aspect ratios from an existing public ID, including padded and cropped 9:16 variants.
Return delivery URLs for common platform aspect ratios (16:9, 1:1, 4:5, 9:16 padded, 9:16 cropped) derived from an existing public_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publicId | Yes | ||
| resourceType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is produced (delivery URLs plus the specific variant set), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether these are pre-existing or lazily generated derivatives, whether any quota/cost applies, or how multiple variants are returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, the output, and the qualifying variant list all earn their place.
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?
No output schema exists, and while the description names the variants, it doesn't say how the URLs are returned (array, keyed object) or how resourceType affects routing. Adequate for the tool's simplicity but with visible gaps for a 0%-coverage schema.
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% for two params, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies public_id ('an existing public_id'), but resourceType is never mentioned in the description; only the schema enum (image/video/raw) hints at it, so compensation is only partial.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Return delivery URLs for common platform aspect ratios' derived from a public_id. The enumerated ratio set (16:9, 1:1, 4:5, 9:16 padded/cropped) makes its scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from the mutating siblings cloudinary_upload, cloudinary_link, and cloudinary_delete.
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 phrase 'derived from an existing public_id' implies a prerequisite (an asset must already exist) and usage context, but no alternative or when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent gets implied guidance rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.