Tanod MCP server

imagepeek: rotate or flip an image

image_rotate

Idempotent

Rotate or flip an image clockwise by any angle, with optional canvas expansion and background fill, then return it as base64 or a temporary URL.

Instructions

imagepeek: Rotate or flip an image. To change the format use image_convert. Returns the image rotated clockwise by angle (multiples of 90 are lossless transposes; other angles are bicubic, expanded by default, corners filled with background) and/or flipped (horizontal, vertical, both). 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-rotate-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`flip`	No	Mirror after rotating: none (default), horizontal, vertical or both.	none
`angle`	No	Degrees, clockwise.
`expand`	No	Grow the canvas to hold the whole rotated image (default true); false keeps the size and clips the corners.
`format`	No	Output format (default: the input's; ICO in, PNG out).
`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
`quality`	No	Encoder quality 1-100 (lossy formats).
`background`	No	Fill for uncovered corners: #rrggbb[aa] or transparent (default transparent, or white without alpha).
`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
`url`	No
`flip`	No
`angle`	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: it discloses the 90-degree-multiple losslessness versus bicubic resampling distinction, the 40-megapixel/8-format input refusal (not charged), the 413 threshold on output, metadata stripping (no EXIF/GPS/XMP/IPTC), the 24-hour retention of `output: url` results, and that images are not logged. With readOnlyHint=false the annotations only signal 'non-read, non-destructive, idempotent', so this added operational detail is the real payload.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the alternative in the first two clauses, then packs limits, cost and docs with no filler. It is a single dense block of many clauses rather than scannable segments, which slightly slows an agent extracting one specific constraint.

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?

Covers input constraints, transformation semantics, output limits, retention, latency, pricing, free tier and a docs link, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing. An output schema exists, yet the description's mention of the url-mode reply fields is harmless corroboration rather than a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds processing semantics the schema omits: what happens to the canvas at non-right angles, that corners are filled with `background`, and that expand defaults to growing the canvas. It also connects `output: url` to keeping the file out of context, which matters for agent token budgeting.

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 and resource ('Rotate or flip an image') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming image_convert for format changes. An agent can pick this over image_resize/image_crop/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 for the adjacent use case ('To change the format use image_convert'), which is the main routing ambiguity in this family. It stops short of stating when source images are unsuitable for all siblings (e.g. only 8 input formats are accepted) as routing guidance, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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

Deploy Server