API Ninjas

extractTextFromImage

Read-only

Given an input image, return all detected texts and their bounding boxes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "image": "<image>"
    },
    "name": "extractTextFromImage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`image`	Yes	Image file to extract text from. Must be either JPEG or PNG format.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful return information by saying it returns detected texts and their bounding boxes, which annotations do not provide. However, it does not describe bounding box format, language support, image size limits, or error behavior.

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 covering purpose and return values. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough information to invoke it and understand the high-level return. Because no output schema exists, it could say more about the structure of the returned bounding boxes, but the essential context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole image parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the JPEG/PNG format constraint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific action: extract text from an input image and return all detected texts and bounding boxes. The resource and output are clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling vision tools like detectObjects or detectFaces, but the name and description are still specific enough.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is given. It does not mention when to choose this over sibling vision tools or other text-processing tools. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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

All API Ninjas tools Inspect

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

Need Help?