ZapifyAPI MCP Server

add_watermark

Protect images by overlaying custom text watermarks. Provide base64 image data and the text to add.

Instructions

Add a text watermark to an image.

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": {
      "binaryData": "<binaryData>",
      "watermark_text": "<watermark_text>"
    },
    "name": "add_watermark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`binaryData`	Yes	Base64 encoded image
`watermark_text`	Yes	Text to overlay

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool returns a new watermarked image, any input format limitations, or side effects. The description simply restates the operation without adding behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no filler words, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately compact for the operation it describes.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out the return value format and any constraints like maximum image size. This is a significant gap for an agent to know what to expect, so it is incomplete.

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 input schema already thoroughly describes both parameters ('Base64 encoded image' and 'Text to overlay'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 'Add a text watermark to an image' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like convert_image_to_webp or generate_qr_code. It immediately clarifies the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the function is self-evident and no sibling tool directly competes, so the usage is implied by the description.

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