image-metadata-embed-and-report

read_image_metadata

Extract XMP and basic EXIF metadata from images stored in Supabase Storage to inspect, validate, or report image details.

Instructions

Extract XMP and basic EXIF metadata from images in Supabase Storage

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": {
      "image_path": "<image_path>"
    },
    "name": "read_image_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	No	Output format for metadata (default: json)
`image_path`	Yes	Path to image in Supabase Storage (e.g., "folder/image.jpg")
`include_xmp`	No	Include XMP metadata extraction (default: true)
`include_exif`	No	Include basic EXIF data extraction (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

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 behavioral burden. It does not state whether extraction is read-only (implied but not declared), how large images are handled, whether failures on missing paths are returned or thrown, or what the output structure looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though it omits any structural framing for parameters or behavior that would help an agent.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a read-oriented extraction tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about return shape and behavior to be complete for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, their defaults, and the enum for format. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data 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 (Extract) and resource (XMP and basic EXIF metadata) and scopes the source (images in Supabase Storage). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like embed_image_metadata or validate_metadata_schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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-tool guidance is provided. The agent must infer from the name that this is the read counterpart to embed_image_metadata, but the description offers no routing help.

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

Deploy Server