vøiddo utilities

Image converter

image_convert

Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert and resize images between PNG, JPEG, WEBP, GIF, BMP, TIFF and ICO, with quality, fit modes, transparency handling and optional metadata stripping. Cost: 1 credit per call. File input (file): base64 string, data: URI or {"url": "https://..."}. Output: a file (image/png | image/jpeg | image/webp | image/gif | image/bmp | image/tiff | image/x-icon) returned inline, at most 1 MiB. The converted image

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "image_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Target format
`fit`	No		inside
`file`	Yes	The image: base64 (or data: URI) string, or {"url": "https://..."}; up to 10 MB
`width`	No	Target width in px
`height`	No	Target height in px
`quality`	No	jpeg / webp quality (webp 100 = lossless)
`background`	No	Colour for transparent areas when the target has no alpha, and for contain padding (default white / transparent)
`strip_metadata`	No	Drop EXIF / XMP / ICC (colours are converted to sRGB first)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: 1 credit per call, accepted input encodings, and a 1 MiB inline output ceiling. It stops short of saying what happens when the result exceeds 1 MiB (error vs truncation), which is the one behavioral gap.

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 first three sentences are dense and well front-loaded (capability, cost, I/O contract). However, the description ends on a dangling fragment, 'The converted image', which is an incomplete sentence that wastes space and slightly muddies the return-value statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract: inline file with enumerated MIME types and a size cap. For an 8-parameter tool at 88% schema coverage the essentials are present; only the over-limit behavior and any latency/size tradeoff for resizing are unstated.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description's mention of quality, fit modes, transparency handling and metadata stripping merely names fields that the schema explains in more detail, adding no new semantics.

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 pair (convert and resize) plus the resource (images) and enumerates the supported format set, which is enough to separate it from raster-unrelated siblings like svg_to_png, html_to_image and screenshot without opening any schema.

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 implied by the operation itself (you reach for this when you need a different image format or dimensions), and the cost line signals this is a billable server call. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as svg_to_png for vector sources.

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

All vøiddo utilities tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?