toolforte

Convert image

image_convert

Convert an image (public URL, max 15MB) to another format (png, jpeg, bmp, gif, tiff), pixels unchanged. 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
`format`	Yes	Target image format

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: output is a hosted URL valid for 24 hours, demo usage is limited to 3 renders/day, API-key usage costs 25 units per render, and pixels are unchanged. It also mentions the 15MB source limit. This is extensive and material behavioral information for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core operation and scope, and every sentence adds non-redundant value: conversion scope, output behavior, and cost/auth model. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter conversion tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: input requirements, output behavior/expiration, authentication options, usage limits, and unit cost. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand the consequences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by specifying the 15MB source-size constraint for 'url' and enumerating the allowed output formats for 'format'. It does not add detailed parameter syntax, but the extra constraints are genuinely useful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert an image (public URL, max 15MB) to another format (png, jpeg, bmp, gif, tiff)'. It also adds the scoping constraint 'pixels unchanged', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_compress and image_resize. The purpose is immediately clear and actionable.

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 clearly states the input must be a public URL, the size limit, and the available output formats, which defines when the tool is appropriate. It provides cost and authentication context (demo limit vs. API key usage) but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to choose another tool such as image_resize or image_compress. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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?