Skip to main content
Glama

ai_image

ai_image

Generate an AI image (Google Nano Banana 2). ~$0.08 per call. Returns PNG URL(s).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYesWhat to draw (English works best)
aspect_ratioNoauto | 1:1 | 16:9 | 9:16 | 4:3 | 3:4

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cost per call (~$0.08) and return format (PNG URLs), which go beyond the structured annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, model, cost, and output format without any redundant text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides essential operational details (cost, output type) and is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'What to draw', aspect ratio options). The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool generates an AI image, identifies the specific model (Google Nano Banana 2), and indicates the output (PNG URLs). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling generation tools like ai_video or ai_music.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use for image generation scenarios with its explicit verb 'Generate' and the resource type. While it does not name alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over siblings.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Four image generation tools, three video tools, and five 'ask' tools create significant overlap. Although descriptions specify the model, an agent must carefully compare prices and capabilities to choose correctly, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (remove_bg, scrape_page), some with nouns (crypto_prices, market_snapshot), and many use ai_/ask_ prefixes. Model suffixes like flux, gpt, pro, kling are descriptive but not systematically applied.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is heavy, inflated by near-duplicate variants for image, video, and LLM queries. While the broad scope justifies a large count, the redundant tools could have been consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide range of media and data tasks: image, video, music, voice, vision, LLM, web, crypto, domain, and endpoint discovery. Notable gaps like speech-to-text or image editing exist, but the surface is fairly complete for a general-purpose media toolkit.

Resources