inspect_metadataFetch a public image or video URL (JPEG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, HEIC, GIF, TIFF, MP4, MOV; max 15 MB) and report its hidden metadata: GPS coordinates, camera and lens, timestamps, software, C2PA/Content Credentials, AI-generator signals (Midjourney, DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc.), and how many bytes are metadata. Does not modify or store the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Direct link to the file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful specifics beyond annotations: supported formats, the 15 MB cap, and the fact that the file is not modified or stored. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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 description is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then efficiently packs supported formats, size limit, metadata categories, and the no-storage guarantee into two sentences. Every clause adds useful information.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned metadata categories in enough detail for an agent to know what to expect. Combined with the annotations and complete parameter schema, the definition is complete for this 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 coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, so the schema already defines it as a URI. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: the URL must point to a public image/video, supported formats are listed, and the file size must be under 15 MB.
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: fetch a URL and report its hidden metadata. It enumerates the exact metadata categories returned (GPS, camera/lens, timestamps, software, C2PA, AI-generator signals, metadata byte count) and the supported file types, so an agent can distinguish this tool immediately.
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 clearly scopes usage to public image or video URLs and specifies supported formats and a 15 MB limit. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, and no explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the constraints and read-only note provide strong contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.