Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
image-metadata-embed-and-report

image-metadata-embed-and-report

by Desmond-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_xmp_packet

Convert a metadata object into a standalone XMP packet with validation for lifestyle, product, or orbit schemas, and optionally save it to Supabase Storage.

Instructions

Create standalone XMP metadata packet from metadata object with validation

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": {
      "metadata": "<metadata>"
    },
    "name": "create_xmp_packet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metadataYesMetadata object to convert to XMP format (supports lifestyle, product, and orbit schemas)
output_pathNoPath to save XMP file in Supabase Storage (optional, e.g., "metadata/sample.xmp")
schema_typeNoSchema type for metadata validation (auto-detected if not specified)
pretty_printNoFormat XMP for readability with indentation (default: true)
include_wrappersNoInclude XMP packet wrappers (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'with validation' but doesn't describe what validation happens (schema validation? error handling?), whether it writes to storage (output_path suggests side effect), what happens on validation failure, or whether it requires external services like Supabase. For a tool with an optional storage write and validation, this is a significant omission.

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?

Single efficient sentence with no waste, though it's a bit terse given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core action and result. Could benefit from slightly more structure but remains concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nested objects, optional storage write, validation, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return format (even without an output schema, the agent needs to know what happens on success/failure), how validation errors are surfaced, or the relationship to sibling validation tools. The schema covers parameters but behavioral context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all five parameters thoroughly, including the metadata object, output_path, schema_type enum, pretty_print, and include_wrappers. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create standalone XMP metadata packet from metadata object with validation.' Clear what it does. It does not differentiate from siblings like validate_metadata_schema or embed_image_metadata, which also deal with metadata conversion/validation, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It doesn't clarify whether this is used before embedding, or how it differs from validate_metadata_schema. The description mentions validation but doesn't direct the agent to use validate_metadata_schema separately or explain the relationship.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools