Download a completed image from its signed generation URL, validate the URL host and file signature, and save it locally.
Download completed image output from the official signed generation URL, validate the URL host and file signature, then save it locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| generation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses URL host validation, file signature validation, and local saving, but it does not cover overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions, or what is returned after saving.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause adds operative detail about source, validation, and save behavior.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter download tool in purpose and safety behavior, but it leaves both parameters undocumented and omits basic local-save edge cases. For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, more context would be expected.
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 does not explain either parameter. It implies that a generation output is saved locally, but it never clarifies what generation_id identifies or how filename is used, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: download completed image output. It also scopes the operation to the official signed generation URL and local saving, which distinguishes it from generation/metadata siblings like generate_image and get_image_generation.
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 clear context: the output must be completed and come from the official signed generation URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear for a download tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.