Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Simpler.Asia

by asia.simpler
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

image.describe

Analyze a photo with vision (subjects, defects, OCR text, composition) and return a description. Token-billed at the platform's vision rates. Returns JSON {text, price, next}. Refuses: SIMPLER_MEDIA_INPUT_MISSING (pass the url or the asset_key), SIMPLER_MEDIA_FOREIGN_KEY (use this workspace's asset_key), SIMPLER_MEDIA_URL_REFUSED (use https, data:image or an asset_key), SIMPLER_MEDIA_PIN_TOO_LARGE (under 20MB), SIMPLER_MEDIA_UNKNOWN_TYPE (send PNG, JPEG or WebP), INSUFFICIENT_CREDITS (add credits). NEXT: act on the findings with image.inpaint, image.cut_background or image.upscale.

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": "image.describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionNoOptional focused question.
image_urlNoPhoto to analyze: a public https URL, a data:image/...;base64 URL, or the url/url_path of an earlier image result (max 20MB; PNG, JPEG, WebP or GIF; SVG is refused). Pass this or the matching *_asset_key, not both.
request_refNoOptional idempotency key (1-64 chars: letters, digits, . _ : -). Retrying with the same request_ref and the same arguments within 24 hours returns the first result at $0 with replayed: true; the same request_ref with different arguments is refused (SIMPLER_IMAGE_REQUEST_REF_CONFLICT), and so is a retry whose first result was deleted since (SIMPLER_IMAGE_REQUEST_REF_RESULT_DELETED): send a new request_ref to run it again.
image_asset_keyNoPhoto to analyze, as the asset_key of an earlier image result for this workspace (edit-projects/<tenant>/... or images/<tenant>/...). A key from another workspace is refused (SIMPLER_MEDIA_FOREIGN_KEY).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses token billing at vision rates, the returned JSON shape {text, price, next}, six named refusal codes with the fix for each, and input size/type limits. This is exactly the cost, failure-mode and output-contract context an agent needs before spending money.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and cost, then refusal-codes, then next steps: a clean, easy-to-scan order with no filler. The refusal list is long but each entry carries an actionable fix, so only the slight redundancy with the schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description nevertheless spells out the return object, the billing model and the downstream routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this tool correctly, or to recover from failure, is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter is already described in detail, so the description's parameter notes (url or asset_key, https/data:image forms, 20MB limit, PNG/JPEG/WebP) mostly restate the schema. It only adds a small amount, such as the FOREIGN_KEY remedy. It also omits GIF from the accepted-type list even though the schema allows it, which could confuse an agent reading only the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze a photo with vision') plus the exact dimensions examined (subjects, defects, OCR text, composition). This clearly distinguishes it from the mutating siblings image.inpaint, image.cut_background and image.upscale, which are named only as follow-ups.

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 NEXT clause explicitly routes the agent to the three downstream tools to use once a description exists, which is strong guidance for the after-state. However, there is no explicit rule for when NOT to use this tool (for example, instead of document.extract or image.segment_at), so the exclusions are only implied by the input constraints.

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

All Simpler.Asia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources