Skip to main content
Glama
Tencent

Tencent Cloud COS MCP Server

Official
by Tencent

assessQuality

Evaluate image quality using the specified object path in Tencent Cloud COS. Simplifies image processing by providing assessments directly through the MCP server without additional coding.

Instructions

图片处理-图片质量评估

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectKeyYes图片在存储桶里的路径

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function in CIAIService that assesses image quality by making a GET request to COS with ci-process='AssessQuality' query parameter.
    async assessQuality(objectKey: string) {
      try {
        const result = await this.cos.request({
          Bucket: this.bucket,
          Region: this.region,
          Method: 'GET',
          Key: objectKey,
          Query: {
            'ci-process': 'AssessQuality',
          },
        });
    
        return {
          isSuccess: true,
          message: '图片处理成功',
          data: result,
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          isSuccess: false,
          message: '图片处理失败',
          data: error,
        };
      }
    }
  • src/server.ts:339-357 (registration)
    MCP tool registration for 'assessQuality', including input schema (objectKey: string) and thin wrapper handler that calls the service method and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      'assessQuality',
      '图片处理-图片质量评估',
      {
        objectKey: z.string().describe('图片在存储桶里的路径'),
      },
      async ({ objectKey }) => {
        const res = await CIAIInstance.assessQuality(objectKey);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify(res.data, null, 2),
            },
          ],
          isError: !res.isSuccess,
        };
      },
    );
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter for the assessQuality tool.
      objectKey: z.string().describe('图片在存储桶里的路径'),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context. It implies a read-only analysis (assessing quality) but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it modifies the image, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured scores or simple ratings, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is very concise ('图片处理-图片质量评估'), consisting of a brief phrase. It's front-loaded with the core function but lacks elaboration. While efficient, it may be overly terse for a tool that likely returns complex quality metrics, risking under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (quality assessment often involves multiple metrics) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'quality' means, what the output contains (e.g., scores, recommendations), or any limitations (e.g., supported image types). For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'objectKey' clearly documented as '图片在存储桶里的路径' (path of the image in the storage bucket). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully describes the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but no extra value from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '图片处理-图片质量评估' (Image processing - image quality assessment) states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the domain (image processing) and function (quality assessment) but doesn't specify what kind of quality is assessed (e.g., technical metrics, aesthetic scores) or what the output represents. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'imageInfo' which might provide similar metadata.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., image format requirements), use cases (e.g., evaluating uploads, filtering content), or comparisons to siblings like 'imageInfo' (which might give basic info) or 'aiSuperResolution' (which enhances quality). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Tencent/cos-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server