toolforte

Compress image

image_compress

Re-encode an image (public URL, max 15MB) as JPEG at a chosen quality (1-100, default 70) to shrink it. Returns a hosted download URL valid for 24 hours. Free demo: 3 renders/day. With a free ToolForte API key (Authorization: Bearer tf_..., get one at https://toolforte.com/developers), which spends your monthly unit balance: 25 units per render.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public URL of the source image
`quality`	No	JPEG quality, 1 (smallest) to 100 (best)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Hosted download URL of the produced file
`bytes`	No	Size in bytes
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object
`metering`	No	What this call cost and what allowance remains
`expiresAt`	No	When the download URL stops working (ISO 8601)
`contentType`	No	MIME type of the produced file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "bytes": {
+      "description": "Size in bytes",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "contentType": {
+      "description": "MIME type of the produced file",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expiresAt": {
+      "description": "When the download URL stops working (ISO 8601)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "metering": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "What this call cost and what allowance remains",
+      "properties": {
+        "remaining": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "source": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Hosted download URL of the produced file",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it handles this well. It states the operation (re-encode as JPEG), the output (hosted download URL valid for 24 hours), the rate limit (3 renders/day demo), and auth/pricing (Bearer tf_... key, 25 units per render). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 and front-loaded with the core action before moving to output, demo limits, and API key/cost details. Every sentence adds necessary operational information; there is no filler.

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?

For a single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers input constraints, output format/lifetime, authentication, rate limits, and cost. An agent can correctly invoke the tool and understand the result without additional context.

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 coverage is effectively 100%: url is described as 'Public URL of the source image' and quality has type, default, min/max, and a description. The description adds the source size cap (15MB) and the fact that output is a hosted download URL, but it doesn't materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Re-encode an image... as JPEG at a chosen quality' and states the goal 'to shrink it.' It clearly separates it from sibling tools like image_resize or image_convert by specifying re-encoding/compression rather than resizing or generic conversion.

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?

The intended use case is implied by 'to shrink it' and the JPEG re-encoding detail, but the description never explicitly says when to choose image_compress over image_resize or image_convert, nor gives exclusion conditions. It provides functional context (public URL, max 15MB) but no alternative routing.

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

All toolforte 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the detailed descriptions clearly separate near neighbors like generate_test_bsn versus generate_brp_test_data, read_page versus url_screenshot versus url_to_pdf, and image_compress/convert/resize. Even with 40 tools, there is no real boundary-blurring overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes conventions: verb_noun (generate_*, validate_*), noun_verb (pdf_merge, image_resize), conversion-style names (csv_to_json, html_to_pdf), and bare nouns (base64, qr_code_png). The groups are recognizable, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is an oversized surface for an agent to consider on every call, well above the point where tool selection cost starts to hurt. The broad purpose explains the count, but many one-off utilities could be grouped or exposed selectively.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains—encoding, Dutch test data, image/PDF handling, memory, and workflows—but several categories are partial: there are no reverse conversions like json_to_csv or html_to_markdown, no PDF text extraction, and no workflow create/update/delete tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but notable operations are missing.

Resources

Need Help?