Skip to main content
Glama

web_image_search

Read-only

Search for images by keyword and return direct image file URLs with source page details.

Instructions

Image search through our own metasearch layer. The third tool of the module: web_search finds pages, web_read extracts their content, this one finds IMAGES.

WHEN TO CALL. You need a picture of an object, a product, a building, a person, a diagram. You need the address of the image file itself rather than of a page about it.

WHEN NOT TO CALL. You need text about the object — that is web_search. You need the content of a specific page — web_read. This tool does NOT look at the pictures and does not describe them: it finds addresses, and whoever can see looks at them.

WHAT IT RETURNS. results[] with image_url (the file itself), page_url (the page it was found on), domain (the site the image is SOURCED from), page_domain, thumbnail, title, author, published, via.

HOW TO READ THE ANSWER — three things.

  1. AN IMAGE HAS TWO ADDRESSES and they must not be confused: image_url is the file, page_url is the page. Showing the page instead of the image is a mistake only a human notices.

  2. AN EMPTY LIST IS A SUCCESS, not a failure: we looked and found nothing. A failure arrives with ok=false and a reason.

  3. engines_irrelevant names engines whose results were discarded ENTIRELY as not being about the query. With images this is common: an engine returns its own catalogue regardless of the query and looks excellent by result count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNothe result page, from zero; default 0
queryYeswhat to look for; a non-Latin script switches the results to that language
max_resultsNohow many images to return, default 12

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context beyond this: it states the tool does not analyze image content, only retrieves addresses, and explains that an empty result list is a successful outcome while failures carry ok=false. It also details the engines_irrelevant field, enriching the agent's understanding of result semantics.

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 description is long but well-organized into purposeful sections (WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, WHAT IT RETURNS, HOW TO READ THE ANSWER). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though some sentences could be trimmed without loss of value.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing return fields (image_url, page_url, domain, etc.) and providing interpretive guidance (distinguishing image_url from page_url, empty list as success). It covers all relevant aspects for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool, given its annotations.

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% and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter definitions. It does not elaborate on 'query', 'page', or 'max_results' beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The non-Latin script note is already in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it finds IMAGES via a metasearch layer, and explicitly contrasts with web_search (pages) and web_read (content). It clarifies it returns image file addresses, not descriptions, which distinguishes it from siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO CALL' and 'WHEN NOT TO CALL' sections name the exact alternatives (web_search for text, web_read for page content) and specify conditions for image search. It also cautions that it doesn't look at or describe images, providing clear routing guidance.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AG-Bureau/mcp-search'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server