Skip to main content
Glama

Upload an image to work on

image_upload
DestructiveIdempotent

Send an image to this hosted endpoint. There is no filesystem here, so instead of a path you upload the file once with image_upload and then pass its name as path (or inside paths) to image_info, image_resize, image_convert, image_compress, image_crop, image_thumbnails, image_batch_resize and image_dominant_colors. PNG, JPEG, BMP, GIF and TIFF are accepted and the format is read from the file's magic bytes, not from the name. Give exactly one of image_base64 or url. url: fetch a public file instead of pasting base64 (recommended above about 10 KB): writing out a real photo as base64 is a long tool call and 50 KB or more can stall the turn before the upload is sent, while a url costs one line and the fetch happens here (10 second timeout, at most 3 redirects, public http(s) hosts only, 2 MB cap). Uploads are kept for your token between calls; image_files lists them and image_delete_upload removes one. A file this server writes is named the same way and comes back as a download link valid for one hour, served with the real image content type. The request body cap is 256 KB, which is about 190 KB of image once base64-encoded.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNourl: fetch a public file instead of pasting base64 (recommended above about 10 KB). Public http(s) only; private, link-local and this endpoint's own zone are refused
nameYesName to refer to this image by: 1-64 characters of letters, digits, underscore or dash, e.g. "shot"
image_base64NoThe image file, base64-encoded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare openWorldHint=false, but the description explicitly offers `url` fetching of public http(s) hosts with redirects and a timeout, which is an external/open-world interaction. That directly contradicts the annotation, so the rule requires a 1 even though the description otherwise supplies useful behavioral detail such as retention, caps, magic-byte format detection, and download-link lifetime.

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 dense but well front-loaded: purpose first, then workflow, then parameter rules, URL constraints, retention, and caps. Every sentence carries operational information and 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 stateful upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: no filesystem, upload-once workflow, accepted formats, magic-byte detection, URL and base64 limits, request-size cap, retention between calls, listing/removal siblings, and returned download-link behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds crucial semantics not fully encoded in the schema: exactly one of `image_base64` or `url` must be given, URL is recommended above about 10 KB because large base64 calls can stall, and `name` is the handle used by other tools. This meaningfully supplements the parameter definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Send an image to this hosted endpoint') and immediately distinguishes the workflow from filesystem-based siblings by explaining that the uploaded file's name becomes the `path` argument for image_info, image_resize, and others. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from image_files and image_delete_upload.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to upload once and then pass the returned name to the listed processing tools, and it names image_files and image_delete_upload for listing and removal. It also explains the choice between `image_base64` and `url`, including when URL is preferable, so the agent has clear when-to-use guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.