pictor-mcp

Rotate or flip an image

image_rotate

Fix image orientation by rotating to any angle, mirroring horizontally or vertically, and applying EXIF orientation so pixels match viewer display.

Instructions

Rotate by any angle, mirror horizontally or vertically, and/or apply the EXIF orientation so the pixels match what a viewer shows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	http(s) URL to fetch. Disabled unless PICTOR_ALLOW_NET_FETCH=true.
`flip`	No	Mirror the image: horizontal, vertical or both.
`path`	No	Path to the image, relative to an allowed input root (or absolute inside one).
`angle`	No	Degrees counter-clockwise.
`expand`	No	Grow the canvas so rotation does not clip corners.
`quality`	No	Lossy quality 1-100 (higher is better quality and larger).
`background`	No	RGBA fill for exposed areas.
`auto_orient`	No	Apply the EXIF orientation tag first.
`base64_data`	No	Inline image bytes as base64, optionally a data: URI.
`output_name`	No	Override the output filename (a safe name is derived if omitted).
`return_image`	No	Embed the resulting image inline so vision-capable clients can see it.
`output_format`	No	Output codec: jpeg, png, webp, avif, tiff, gif, bmp, ico, jpeg2000, qoi, ppm. Defaults to the input format.
`return_base64`	No	Include the base64 payload in the JSON result for clients without file access.
`strip_metadata`	No	Remove EXIF/GPS/ICC metadata. Defaults to the server setting (on).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No
`input`	No	Summary of the source image, when one was read.
`notes`	No
`steps`	No
`metrics`	No	Operation-specific measurements (e.g. comparison scores).
`outputs`	No
`operation`	Yes	Tool that produced this result.
`sizeChange`	No
`inlineImageIncluded`	No	True when an image block accompanies this result for vision-capable clients.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that EXIF orientation can be applied so pixels match a viewer, but it omits other behavioral context (defaults, output side effects, metadata handling) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence captures the core operations plus the EXIF nuance with no filler. It earns every word and is easy for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a rich output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and a focused one-sentence description, an agent has enough to understand the operation. The missing usage-guidance nuance is already scored separately, so this remains largely complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but it does not need to; every parameter already has an explicit schema description.

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?

States a specific operation set—rotate by arbitrary angle, mirror horizontally or vertically, and apply EXIF orientation—so the tool is clearly distinguished from resize, crop, thumbnail, and watermark siblings. 'Rotate or flip an image' in the title reinforces the exact resource and action.

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?

The intended use is implied by the verbs and by the viewer-matching EXIF rationale, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose image_rotate over image_transform or other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server