Tanod MCP server

imagepeek: crop an image

image_crop

Idempotent

Crop an image to a pixel box or aspect ratio, choose a gravity point, and receive the cropped image in base64 or as a download URL.

Instructions

imagepeek: Crop an image to a box or an aspect ratio. To scale instead use image_resize. Returns the image cropped to a box (left, top, width, height; out of bounds is a 422 crop_out_of_bounds) or to an aspect ratio such as 16:9 placed by gravity (center or a side or corner); the reply carries the applied box. Reads PNG, JPEG, WebP, GIF, TIFF, BMP, ICO and AVIF; other formats and images over 40 megapixels are refused (not charged). Output: base64 data_base64, without EXIF, GPS, XMP or IPTC; over 15 MB or 50 megapixels is a 413 (not charged). Images are not logged; a result is kept only with output "url" (24 h). Typically 0.5-2 s. Price: USD 0.002. Free: 3 imagepeek calls per IP per UTC day. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/image-crop-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No	Box mode: top edge in pixels.
`url`	No	Public http(s) URL of the image (at most 10 MB; private, internal and IP-literal hosts are refused); or use image_base64.
`left`	No	Box mode: left edge in pixels (give left, top, width and height together, or aspect).
`width`	No	Box mode: crop width in pixels (1-32768).
`aspect`	No	Instead of a box, e.g. 16:9, with gravity.
`format`	No	Output format (default: the input's; ICO in, PNG out).
`height`	No	Box mode: crop height in pixels (1-32768).
`output`	No	base64 (default): the file comes back inline as base64. url: the file is stored for 24 hours and the reply carries a download link (url, expires_at, bytes, content_type, sha256) instead of the base64, which keeps the file out of your context window.	base64
`gravity`	No	Aspect mode: the part to keep: center (default), north, south, east, west, northwest, northeast, southwest or southeast.	center
`quality`	No	Encoder quality 1-100 (lossy formats).
`auto_orient`	No	Apply the EXIF orientation first.
`image_base64`	No	The image as standard or url-safe base64 (at most 10 MB decoded; a data:image/...;base64, prefix is fine); or use url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`box`	No
`url`	No
`bytes`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`input`	No
`notes`	No
`width`	No
`format`	No
`height`	No
`sha256`	No
`source`	No
`final_url`	No
`operation`	No
`expires_at`	No
`source_url`	No
`data_base64`	No
`content_type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses accepted input formats, the 40 MP input refusal, the 422 crop_out_of_bounds and 413 output errors (both explicitly 'not charged'), the returned box, metadata stripping, privacy ('images are not logged', 24 h retention only for url output), latency, price and the free-tier quota. Annotations only cover safety hints, so this description carries and delivers the full behavioral burden.

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?

Long but densely packed and front-loaded: purpose, sibling routing, mode semantics, then limits/cost/retention. Each clause earns its place (errors, pricing, quota, docs link all aid agent planning), though the single paragraph is heavier than needed and could be split for scanability.

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?

For a 12-parameter media-processing tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: mode selection, input/output constraints, error codes, cost, retention and a docs link. Return-value detail is a bonus rather than a gap, since an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-level semantics the schema states only per-parameter: that left/top/width/height must be given together as one alternative and aspect+gravity as the other, plus the out-of-bounds error for boxes. That mutual-exclusivity framing is genuine added value above the field descriptions.

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 verb+resource ('Crop an image') and immediately scopes it ('to a box or an aspect ratio'), then explicitly routes the scaling case to the sibling image_resize. An agent can distinguish this from image_resize/image_convert without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative (image_resize) and the condition that selects it, and explains the two operating modes (box vs aspect+gravity). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer image_thumbnail or image_convert for format-only changes), leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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

Deploy Server