Gemini MCP Server

Load Image from File Path

load_image_from_path

Load a local image file and return base64-encoded data to pass to image tools for generation, editing, description, or analysis.

Instructions

Read a local image file and return it as base64-encoded data ready to pass to generate_image, edit_image, describe_image, or analyze_image tools. Supports JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP, BMP.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "load_image_from_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	Absolute or relative path to the image file

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description independently must cover behaviors. It mentions the return format and supported types but omits potential errors, file size limits, or path accessibility constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main action, efficiently communicating key information without extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how its output is used.

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?

The single parameter 'filePath' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further detail about path semantics, such as relative base directory.

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 clearly states the tool reads a local image file and returns base64-encoded data, listing specific compatible tools and supported formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that consume such data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly indicates the tool is for loading local images before passing to other tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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