SuperPost

Download exact source image

request_source_image

Idempotent

Downloads or reuses an immutable original image from a connected source into this workspace's media cache. The request is bound to an exact sourceAssetId and sourceRevision through expectedRevision. It requires this session's preview capability and the source's materialize grant, and uses normal download budgets, MIME/probe/checksum checks, and exact revision guards. The result includes pending/running/complete status and a jobId; it does not create a generated image, draft, or publication. Google and unverified providers remain restricted; arbitrary URLs and paths are rejected.

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": {
      "sourceAssetId": "<sourceAssetId>",
      "expectedRevision": "<expectedRevision>"
    },
    "name": "request_source_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sourceAssetId`	Yes
`expectedRevision`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`mediaId`	No
`createdAt`	Yes
`errorCode`	No
`updatedAt`	Yes
`sourceAssetId`	Yes
`sourceRevision`	No
`viewRepresentation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), it discloses the revision-guard mechanism via expectedRevision, the authorization requirements (preview capability plus materialize grant), budget and validation behavior (download budgets, MIME/probe/checksum checks), and the asynchronous result shape (pending/running/complete plus jobId). These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint (auth, validation, result shape, exclusions). It is dense but not padded; the only cost is that the guarantees are packed into one long block rather than broken out.

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?

For a mutating, asynchronously-jobbed tool this covers authorization, validation, idempotency intent, and result status, and an output schema exists to carry return details. What is missing is what happens on a revision mismatch and whether the agent should poll jobId, which matters given the pending/running states it advertises.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters, and it does add meaning: sourceAssetId pins an exact asset and expectedRevision acts as an exact-revision guard. It does not explain the revision format or how an agent obtains a valid revision value (presumably from get_source_image), which is the remaining gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Downloads or reuses an immutable original image from a connected source into this workspace's media cache.' It also explicitly scopes out adjacent operations ('does not create a generated image, draft, or publication'). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling 'get_source_image', so an agent must infer the download-vs-metadata split.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives real preconditions ('requires this session's preview capability and the source's materialize grant') and exclusions ('Google and unverified providers remain restricted; arbitrary URLs and paths are rejected'), which is stronger than most. However, it never states when to choose this over 'get_source_image' or 'read_source_file', so sibling routing is left implicit.

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

All SuperPost 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.

Resources

Need Help?