Tanod MCP server

imagepeek: make thumbnails of an image

image_thumbnail

Idempotent

Generate 1-8 thumbnails from one image in a single call, using cover or contain sizing. Reads common formats and returns inline base64 or a 24-hour URL.

Instructions

imagepeek: Make 1-8 thumbnails of an image in one call. For one exact resize use image_resize. Returns 1-8 thumbnails in one call, each sizes entry {width, height} (at most 4096), by fit cover (smart centre crop with gravity, default) or contain; not upscaled unless upscale. The 15 MB output cap covers all of them together. The images come back in images. 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-thumbnail-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fit`	No	cover (default: fill each size, cropping the overflow) or contain (fit inside, no crop).	cover
`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.
`sizes`	Yes	1-8 {width, height}.
`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
`gravity`	No	cover: the part to keep (default center; north, southeast, ...).	center
`quality`	No	Encoder quality 1-100 (lossy formats).
`upscale`	No	Allow thumbnails larger than the input (default false).
`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
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`input`	No
`notes`	No
`images`	No
`source`	No
`final_url`	No
`operation`	No
`source_url`	No
`total_bytes`	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 with non-obvious operational facts: unsupported formats and >40 MP are refused, results are only persisted with output="url" for 24h, images are not logged, stripping of EXIF/GPS/XMP/IPTC, 413 on the 15 MB/50 MP cap, typical latency 0.5-2 s, and pricing/free-tier limits. This is exactly the disclosure annotations can't carry.

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-loaded with purpose and the alternative, then packed with facts where nearly every clause carries load. Mild redundancy ('Make 1-8 thumbnails...in one call' restated as 'Returns 1-8 thumbnails in one call') and an extremely dense single block keep it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes the base64 payload and the url/expires_at form. Combined with format support, refusal rules, caps and cost, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 params (baseline 3). The description adds nuance beyond it: 'smart centre crop with gravity' for cover, 'not upscaled unless upscale', and 'the 15 MB output cap covers all of them together', which clarifies that the cap is aggregate rather than per-thumbnail.

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 with exact scope ('Make 1-8 thumbnails of an image in one call') and explicitly names the sibling that handles the other case ('For one exact resize use image_resize'). An agent can distinguish it from image_resize/image_convert without opening either 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 an alternative (image_resize) and the condition that selects it, and gives clear refusal boundaries ('other formats and images over 40 megapixels are refused'). It does not cover when to prefer it over image_convert or image_compress, but the multi-size batch context is clear.

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

Deploy Server