get_image_infoReturns image width, height, aspect ratio, file type, and Kokon generation metadata (prompt, seed, model, steps) from a provided image path.
Width, height, aspect ratio, file type and, for images made by Kokon, the generation metadata (prompt, seed, model, steps...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value by disclosing the conditional branch: generation metadata (prompt, seed, model, steps) is only returned for Kokon-produced images. It does not mention error behavior for missing or non-image paths.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the common fields and qualifies the metadata case at the end. No wasted words, though the fragment style means the action itself is never stated.
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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description does convey the shape of the returned data, which is the main need. It still leaves the input parameter and failure modes unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter image_path, and the description offers no clarification of it — no path format, no local-vs-URL distinction, no constraints. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.
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 enumerates the fields it returns (width, height, aspect ratio, file type, generation metadata), which lets an agent infer it reads image metadata, but it never states a verb or the resource explicitly and gives no differentiation from the sibling generation tools. It reads as an output-field list rather than a statement of purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools (generate_image, edit_image, upscale_image, etc.) or what prerequisites apply. The only hint is the conditional 'for images made by Kokon', which describes output variance rather than usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.