AI image processing: upscale, resize, crop, compress, convert file format, and generate SEO metadata
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: optimize_image performs the core image optimization task, status checks account/credit info, and upgrade handles plan changes. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming is mixed: optimize_image follows a verb_noun pattern, upgrade is a bare verb, and status is a bare noun. The inconsistency is minor given the small set, but a pattern like check_status or get_status would be more consistent.
Three tools is on the small side but appropriate for a focused image optimization service. The core operation plus two supporting account tools feels reasonable, though additional utilities like batch or history could be justified.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the service: optimizing images, checking credits before batch processing, and upgrading when credits run out. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.
optimize_imageOptimize ImageAInspectOptimize an image: smart lossy compression (typically 60-80% size reduction), optional resize/upscale/format conversion, and AI-generated SEO metadata. Accepts absolute local file paths or remote URLs. In remote/API mode, only remote URLs are supported. Supported input formats: JPG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, GIF, SVG, ICO, HEIC, TIFF, BMP (max 50 MB). Supported output formats: JPG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, GIF, SVG, ICO. Each call costs 3 credits + 1 if SEO tags enabled. Animated GIFs are processed frame-by-frame (each frame optimized individually). Cost = frames × per-frame operations. Use confirm_gif_cost: true after reviewing the cost warning. Free tier: 20 credits/day, no signup. Log in with the login tool for more credits. Use status tool to check remaining credits before batch processing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Absolute local file path or remote URL of the image to optimize. Note: in remote/API mode, only remote URLs are supported (no local file paths). Supported inputs: JPG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, GIF (animated supported), HEIC, TIFF, BMP (max 50 MB). GlassyPic supports high-quality conversion between any input and output format. | |
| output_path | No | Where to save. Accepts a file path (/tmp/out.webp) or directory ending in / (/tmp/images/). If omitted: saves next to original, named with SEO slug when SEO is enabled or .tinified suffix otherwise. URLs save to current working directory. | |
| output_format | No | Output format. Defaults to 'original' (keep input format). Animated GIFs stay animated when output is 'gif'; converting to other formats preserves only the first frame. SVG output from raster input uses vector tracing. ICO output generates a favicon set (16, 24, 32, 48, 256px) unless a specific size is given. | |
| gif_frame_limit | No | Maximum frames to process for animated GIFs (1-100, default 100). Reduces cost by sampling fewer frames while preserving animation. | |
| output_width_px | No | Target width in pixels. Set only width for proportional resize. Set both width and height for exact output dimensions (see output_resize_behavior). | |
| confirm_gif_cost | No | Set to true to proceed with animated GIF processing after seeing cost warning. Required for animated GIFs to prevent unexpected credit consumption. | |
| output_height_px | No | Target height in pixels. Set only height for proportional resize. Set both width and height for exact output dimensions (see output_resize_behavior). | |
| _gif_temp_file_id | No | Internal: temp file ID from a previous GIF cost warning. Skips re-upload. | |
| output_seo_tag_gen | No | Generate SEO metadata (alt text, keywords, filename) and rename output file to SEO slug. Costs 1 extra credit. Default: true. | |
| output_upscale_factor | No | AI upscale factor: 2 (2×) or 4 (4×). Uses Real-ESRGAN for high-quality upscaling. | |
| output_file_size_limit | No | Target maximum output file size in bytes. The server will attempt to meet this limit through additional compression. Not guaranteed. | |
| output_resize_behavior | No | When both width and height are set and aspect ratio differs: 'pad' adds white padding (default), 'crop' smart-crops to fill exact dimensions |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| output_path | Yes | Absolute path where the optimized file was saved |
| seo_alt_text | Yes | AI-generated image alt text for accessibility and SEO |
| seo_filename | Yes | AI-generated SEO filename slug without extension |
| seo_keywords | Yes | AI-generated keywords describing the image |
| output_format | Yes | Output format: jpg, png, webp, avif, or gif |
| output_width_px | Yes | Width of the output image in pixels |
| output_height_px | Yes | Height of the output image in pixels |
| compression_ratio | Yes | Output-to-input size ratio, e.g. 0.35 means 65% smaller |
| output_size_bytes | Yes | File size of the optimized image in bytes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it excels: it details credit costs (3 credits +1 for SEO), animated GIF frame-by-frame processing with cost warnings, and output path defaults. It also discloses caveats like SVG vector tracing, ICO favicon sets, and non-guaranteed file size limits.
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?
The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then covers costs, formats, and mode restrictions. Every sentence adds necessary operational context for a complex tool, though it is on the longer side.
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?
For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this description is exceptionally complete: it covers costs, API mode constraints, format support, GIF cost warnings, and integration with sibling tools. The output schema handles return values, so the description focuses on usage behavior.
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% and each parameter has detailed descriptions. The tool description adds further meaning by explaining cost implications for confirm_gif_cost and gif_frame_limit, and default behaviors for output_path. However, most parameter semantics are already in the schema, so the marginal addition is modest.
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 opens with a specific action: 'Optimize an image' and lists concrete capabilities (compression, resize/upscale, format conversion, SEO metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like status and upgrade, which have entirely different purposes.
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?
The description gives clear context: when to use for image optimization, prerequisites (max 50MB, supported formats), and mode-specific behavior (remote/API mode only URLs). It also directs users to the status tool for checking credits before batch processing, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative image tools (none exist among siblings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
statusAccount StatusAInspectCheck your GlassyPic account status: login state, tier, credits remaining, and credit reset time. Use this before batch processing to verify sufficient credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what data is returned but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, or any side effects, though 'check' implies read-only.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence gives actionable guidance. No redundant information.
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?
For a simple status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is checked and when to use it. It could explain the output format or error handling, but these are minor gaps.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivial and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It adds value by describing the output contents, giving context beyond the empty schema.
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 checks account status and lists the specific elements (login state, tier, credits remaining, reset time). This verb+resource construction distinguishes it from sibling tools like optimize_image and upgrade.
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?
It provides explicit guidance to use before batch processing for credit verification. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the use case is clear and distinct from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
upgradeUpgrade PlanAInspectOpen the GlassyPic pricing page in your browser to upgrade your plan for more credits. Plans: Free (30/day), Pro (3,300/month), Max (12,000/month).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (opening a browser page), but does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., login), or what happens after navigation. Adequate but lacks depth for a complete behavioral picture.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The second sentence efficiently lists plan limits. Every word contributes value; no filler or repetition.
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?
The description covers the essential purpose and provides plan details, which is sufficient for a simple browser-opening action with no parameters or output schema. It does not mention post-navigation steps (e.g., manual purchase), but that is implied and minor.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds useful plan information, slightly exceeding the baseline.
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 opens the GlassyPic pricing page to upgrade the plan for more credits, using specific verb 'open' and resource 'pricing page'. It is distinct from sibling tools (optimize_image, status) and lists the available plans, removing ambiguity.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when the user wants to upgrade for more credits. It also provides plan tiers and limits, offering context for the decision. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, hence not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.
