Extract text from local image files and receive recognized lines with optional per-line confidence scores and bounding-box coordinates.
Recognize text in a local image file. Returns text + per-line confidence + coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_path | Yes | ||
| return_polys | No | ||
| return_scores | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the operation returns text plus confidence and coordinates (i.e., it is a read/recognition operation, not a mutation). However, it says nothing about required permissions, supported formats, size limits, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the output summarized second. Nothing needs trimming.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Because there is no output schema, the return-value sentence is valuable and covers that gap. But three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no mention of format support or error handling leave the definition only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone documents nothing beyond parameter names and defaults. The description partially compensates by mentioning 'per-line confidence' and 'coordinates,' which hint at return_scores and return_polys, but it never explains these flags or when to enable them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Recognize text in a local image file,' and even summarizes the output. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though there are no sibling tools to differentiate against, which caps it below a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'local image file' implicitly scopes the input to local paths, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives apply (e.g., remote URLs, unsupported formats). Usage is only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.