Studio MCP Hub Site

resize_image

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resize an image to target dimensions. Supports fit modes: 'cover' (crop to fill), 'contain' (fit within, letterbox), 'stretch' (exact size). Useful for preparing images for specific platforms, thumbnails, or social media. FREE. (FREE)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	Resize mode: 'contain' (fit within bounds, preserve aspect ratio), 'cover' (crop to fill), 'stretch' (exact size, may distort)	contain
`image`	Yes	Base64-encoded PNG/JPEG image
`width`	Yes	Target width in pixels (1-8192)
`format`	No	Output format	png
`height`	Yes	Target height in pixels (1-8192)
`quality`	No	JPEG/WebP quality (1-100)

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explains the behavioral differences between fit modes (crop, letterbox, stretch), which adds value beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is mostly concise but ends with 'FREE. (FREE)', which is redundant and wastes space. This prevents a higher score.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description adequately covers when and how to use the tool. It doesn't mention output details, but no output schema exists and the schema covers input constraints.

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 restates the mode semantics but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool resizes an image to target dimensions and lists the supported fit modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like upscale_image, which also modifies image dimensions.

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 provides use-case context ('preparing images for specific platforms, thumbnails, or social media') but does not exclude alternative use cases or mention when to prefer a sibling tool.

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

All Studio MCP Hub Site tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_artwork and get_artwork_oracle, which both retrieve artwork metadata with different detail levels, potentially causing confusion. Other tools like enrich_metadata and infuse_metadata also have related but distinct functions, but descriptions help clarify differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names generally follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_balance, delete_asset, resize_image), with minor deviations like mockup_image (noun_verb) and get_artwork_oracle (longer compound name). Overall, the naming is readable and predictable, though not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 27 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, as it covers a broad range of functionalities from artwork retrieval to image processing and compliance. While each tool seems useful, the scope feels heavy and could overwhelm agents, suggesting it might be better split into more focused servers.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for digital asset management, artwork analysis, and image processing, including CRUD operations (save_asset, get_asset, list_assets, delete_asset), metadata enrichment, compliance, and various image utilities. No obvious gaps are present for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?