ZapifyAPI MCP Server

convert_image_to_webp

Convert PNG or JPEG images to WebP format. Provide base64 encoded image data to get a WebP output.

Instructions

Convert a PNG or JPEG image to WebP format. Input: base64 encoded image data.

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>"
    },
    "name": "convert_image_to_webp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`binaryData`	Yes	Base64 encoded image (PNG or JPEG)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 only specifies the input format (base64 encoded image) but does not disclose output format details, error behavior, or side effects. For a conversion tool, such information is important for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that directly state the operation and input requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core input and intent. However, it does not state what the output is (e.g., WebP binary data) or how errors are handled, which would be beneficial for a complete usage picture.

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%, and the description echoes the parameter's purpose ('base64 encoded image data'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Convert a PNG or JPEG image to WebP format') with a clear resource and target format. It distinguishes this from sibling conversion tools (e.g., currency, units) by explicitly naming image formats.

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?

Usage is implied from the name and description—it is for converting images to WebP. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative tools or any exclusions, so it relies on the reader inferring the context.

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