Resize an image to the given width/height.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fit | No | How to fit within width/height. | contain |
| width | No | Target width in pixels. | |
| format | No | Output format (jpeg, png, webp, ...). Defaults to source format. | |
| height | No | Target height in pixels. | |
| source_url | No | Public URL of the image. | |
| file_base64 | No | Base64-encoded image. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., side effects on source image, auth requirements).
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could include key parameter details without much bloat.
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?
Despite output schema and annotations, the description omits details like optional parameters, fit mechanics, or that both width/height can be null.
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%, baseline set to 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., does not explain fit modes or format behavior.
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 clearly states the tool resizes an image to given width/height, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like compress_image or convert_file.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, e.g., compress_image for size reduction or convert_file for format changes.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different file operations (compress, convert, extract, merge, split, etc.) and billing management. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (compress_image, protect_pdf), but a few deviate (images_to_pdf, list_supported_conversions) causing minor inconsistency. The pattern is largely predictable.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but still reasonable given the breadth of file manipulation and billing operations. Each tool serves a distinct need.
The file conversion and PDF manipulation operations are well-covered (compress, convert, extract, merge, split, protect, etc.). The billing tools are complete for subscription and credit management. Minor gaps exist, such as batch operations or image format conversions.