McpStamp Image Tools

Compress an image

image_compress

Call this tool to re-encode an image smaller and report byte counts before/after. quality (default 80) applies to JPEG; for PNG only max_width shrinks it, and the answer names which one worked. Free: sources up to 4 MP.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "out_path": "<out_path>"
    },
    "name": "image_compress"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Name of an image uploaded with image_upload, or one this server wrote earlier
`quality`	No	JPEG quality 1-100, default 80
`out_path`	Yes	Name for the file to write; it comes back as a download link valid for one hour. The extension decides the output format; without a known one the input's format is kept
`max_bytes`	No	Largest the output may be, in bytes. The server searches JPEG quality down from `quality` until it fits and reports the quality it used. JPEG output only
`max_width`	No	Scale down so the width is at most this, keeping the aspect ratio. Never scales up
`overwrite`	No	Replace out_path if it already exists. Default false. Never allows an output to be one of the inputs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / max_bytes / maximum
```
Removed value: -9007199254740991
```
Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / max_bytes / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that the response reports byte counts, that quality affects only JPEG, that PNG shrinks only via max_width, and that the answer names which method worked. It also states a free-tier source-size limit. Without an output schema, this return-signaling information is useful.

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?

Two sentences carry purpose, format-specific behavior, and a usage limit with no filler. The main goal is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description plus the 100%-covered schema give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly and know what to expect back. It could be slightly stronger by naming sibling alternatives, but the free-tier limit and return behavior fill the important gaps.

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%, but the description goes further by linking parameters to formats: `quality` is JPEG-only, `max_width` is the PNG compression path, and the response identifies which parameter was used. This cross-parameter behavior is not present in the JSON 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?

The description specifies a concrete action ('re-encode an image smaller') and a measurable outcome ('report byte counts before/after'), which clearly separates this from sibling resize/convert tools. The PNG/JPEG behavior also ties the purpose to file-size reduction rather than dimension changes.

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?

It opens with 'Call this tool to re-encode an image smaller,' telling an agent when to reach for it. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the format-specific caveats (JPEG vs PNG) provide clear operational context.

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

All McpStamp Image Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.