Fetch image candidates for one platform item by its ID. Use it to resolve a specific post or media ID into downloadable image options.
Inspect a single platform item by ID and return its image candidates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| platform | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, whether it hits rate limits, requires auth, or what 'image candidates' actually means operationally. Given the inspection tool has a return side effect only in reading, this is a notable gap.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then names the return content. No waste.
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?
Output schema exists, so the return content ('image candidates') needn't be fully explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves both required parameters and safety profile under-specified for an inspection tool.
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% with 2 required parameters, so both parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'by ID' for item_id but says nothing about the required 'platform' parameter or its expected format.
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 ('Inspect') and resource ('platform item by ID') plus the return content ('image candidates'). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like search_images or fetch_creator_images, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Implies usage via 'by ID' (i.e., when you already have a specific item identifier), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs search_images or fetch_creator_images guidance and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.