toolforte

Resize image

image_resize

Resize an image (public URL, max 15MB) and return a PNG. Give a width, a height, or both; one side keeps the aspect ratio. 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
`url`	Yes	Public URL of the source image
`width`	No	Target width in pixels
`height`	No	Target height in pixels

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description is rich in behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns a hosted download URL valid for 24 hours, explains the free demo limit (3 renders/day), and discloses authentication requirements and cost (25 units per render with an API key). This gives the agent everything it needs to set expectations before calling.

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: the core action and output format appear in the first sentence, followed by necessary constraints, output details, and auth/cost information. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a relatively simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the key operational factors: input constraints, dimensional behavior, output type and expiry, rate limits, authentication, and pricing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between width and height ('one side keeps the aspect ratio') and by adding the 15MB source-image constraint, which is useful for validation before invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Resize') and resource ('an image'), plus the output format (PNG). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like image_convert or image_compress, which would have earned a 5.

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 gives clear operational guidance: the image must be a public URL under 15MB, width and height can be provided alone or together, and aspect ratio is preserved when only one is given. It does not mention when to choose this tool over image_convert or image_compress, so it stops short of a 5.

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?