Skip to main content
Glama

Claix

by dev.claix

Extract image to JSON

claix.extract.image
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract structured JSON from a visible image (JPEG, PNG, WebP, HEIC/HEIF; max 15 MB) using a Claix img-json schema. Use for photos of documents, tickets, or labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoAPI key secreta de Claix. Ejemplo: claix_sk_abc123.... Opcional si la conexión MCP envía x-api-key en cabecera HTTP (recomendado en Smithery/Cursor).
filenameNoNombre original del archivo con extensión. Ejemplo: factura-2026-03.pdf. Ayuda a inferir el MIME cuando envías file_base64.
file_pathNoURL HTTPS pública del archivo a procesar. Ejemplo: https://cdn.example.com/factura.pdf. No uses rutas locales del PC del usuario.
schema_idYesUUID del schema creado en el dashboard de Claix. Ejemplo: 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000. Llama a claix.schemas.list primero si no lo conoces.
file_base64NoArchivo codificado en Base64. Acepta data URLs (data:application/pdf;base64,...) o Base64 puro. Ejemplo de uso: adjunta el PDF/imagen del chat como Base64 antes de llamar a extract_*.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoJSON payload from the Claix API (extracted records, schema list, or Excel export metadata).
errorNoHuman-readable error message when success is false.
successYesTrue when Claix returned a successful response. False when isError is set on the tool result.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details like supported image formats and the 15 MB size limit, but it does not disclose failure modes, auth requirements beyond the api_key parameter, or any other side effects.

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 compact, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and input restrictions, the second gives concrete use cases. No redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a full input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: supported formats, size limit, and target use cases. It is complete for an extraction tool of this scope, leaving no major gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already thoroughly documented (e.g., schema_id format, file_path must be HTTPS, file_base64 accepts data URLs). The description adds minimal parameter-level value beyond mentioning it uses a 'Claix img-json schema,' which hints at the schema type, but does not compensate further since the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts structured JSON from images, with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('visible image'). It also enumerates supported formats and size limits, and distinguishes itself from sibling extract tools by focusing on image inputs.

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 explicitly states 'Use for photos of documents, tickets, or labels,' which provides clear context for when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., claix.extract.pdf) or state when not to use it, though sibling names imply those alternatives.

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

All Claix toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct role: extract.* produces raw structured JSON, agent.* adds agent-mode reasoning, schemas.* manages schemas, and window_context.* handles persisted documents. Even the parallel extract/agent pairs for each format are disambiguated by the agent/group prefix and explicit descriptions about is_agent_mode.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow a claix.<group>.<target> convention with lowercase snake_case, which is predictable and readable. The main inconsistency is action placement: extract.doc is verb-first while schemas.create is object-first, and convert.json_to_excel uses a noun phrase instead of a verb.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct endpoint or format variant. The parallel extract and agent families are justified by different processing modes, though they do make the surface feel a bit heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The set covers schema lifecycle (create, list, delete), extraction for five major formats, agent-mode variants, document deletion, and window-context query/retrieval. Minor gaps include no schema update endpoint and no generic document listing/retrieval outside window_context.

Resources