Skip to main content
Glama

create_og_image

Render a social preview (OG) image as PNG from a title, description and theme. Returns a hosted image URL. Costs $0.01 per call from your credit balance.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_og_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
themeNoColor theme.dark
titleYesHeadline text.
widthNoImage width in pixels.
heightNoImage height in pixels.
descriptionNoOptional supporting line under the title.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return value (a hosted image URL) and an important operational trait, the $0.01 per-call cost drawn from a credit balance. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether the hosted URL expires, keeping it just short of full transparency.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action and inputs front-loaded and cost/return information appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the essential return (hosted URL) plus cost, which is the key gating information for a paid render call. Missing edge details like URL persistence, regeneration behavior, and aspect-ratio guidance for width/height leave a small gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the same three inputs (title, description, theme) the schema already documents and adds no format, length, or default details, nor any mention of width/height.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Render), the exact artifact (a social preview / OG image as PNG), and the inputs it derives from. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_pdf, create_qr_code, and create_screenshot.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the name and description; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over create_screenshot or create_pdf, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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.

Resources