Skip to main content
Glama

Create image

bannerbear_create_image
Destructive

Generate an image from a template (additive; CONSUMES API quota). Async by default: returns a pending image whose uid you poll with bannerbear_get_image. Set synchronous:true to block and receive the finished image (image_url populated) via the sync host. API: POST /v2/images.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metadataNoArbitrary metadata string echoed back on the object.
templateYesTemplate uid to render.
render_pdfNoAlso render a PDF version of the image.
synchronousNoWhen true, POST to the sync host and wait for the completed image. Default false (202 pending).
transparentNoRender with a transparent background (PNG).
webhook_urlNoURL Bannerbear will POST the finished image to when done.
modificationsNoLayer overrides applied to the template. Array of objects, one per layer, each keyed by `name` (the layer name) plus the props to set, e.g. { name: "title", text: "Hello", color: "#FF0000" } or { name: "photo", image_url: "https://..." }. Only include layers you want to change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint:true. The description adds significant behavioral context: additive API consumption, async default returning a pending object, synchronous blocking behavior, and the API endpoint. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 very concise with three sentences, front-loading key information (generate, additive, async, sync option). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and annotations present, the description is complete. It covers async/sync, API quota, polling, and the endpoint. Without an output schema, it still adequately informs the user about return values (pending vs finished image).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with good per-parameter descriptions. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool generates an image from a template and specifies the API endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the async/sync behavior and the need to poll with bannerbear_get_image.

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 explains when to use synchronous vs asynchronous mode, and mentions polling via bannerbear_get_image. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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.