image_infoRead an image file's format, dimensions, alpha channel, and EXIF orientation from a local path. Get the metadata needed to verify image properties before processing.
Read format, dimensions, alpha and EXIF orientation of an image file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Path to a JPG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, GIF, TIFF or HEIC file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the specific set of metadata that will be read. It does not go beyond the annotation to disclose additional behaviors such as error conditions, unsupported formats, or absence of side effects, but the annotation already covers the key safety aspect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the operational verb and the exact data items returned with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return contents. The input formats are fully covered by the schema, and sibling differentiation is clear from the contrasting verbs and tool names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the input parameter clearly documented as a path to supported image file types. The description adds value by indicating what will be read from that file, but it does not add new meaning about the parameter itself beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('an image file') and names the exact information returned: format, dimensions, alpha, and EXIF orientation. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling manipulation tools such as crop_image, resize_image, and convert_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The read-only framing and the enumerated metadata fields make the inspection purpose clear, and all sibling tools are transformations, so an agent can infer when to select this tool. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to use it versus alternatives, such as 'when you need metadata before modifying an image.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.