Skip to main content
Glama
elestirelbilinc-sketch

Media-infrastructure

by elestirelbilinc-sketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

upscale

Enhance image resolution using AI upscaling to improve clarity and detail for media projects.

Instructions

Upscale/enhance an image to higher resolution using AI. Cost: $0.15. Requires Tier 1+.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
media_urlYesURL of the image to upscale
scaleNoUpscale factor (2x or 4x)

Implementation Reference

  • sdk/vape_client/async_client.py:228-245 (handler)
    The implementation of the 'upscale' method in the asynchronous VAPE client, which sends a POST request to /v3/upscale.
    async def upscale(
    self,
    image_url: Optional[str] = None,
    image_base64: Optional[str] = None,
    scale: str = "2x",
) -> UpscaleResult:
    """Upscale an image using AI enhancement."""
    if not image_url and not image_base64:
        raise VAPEValidationError("Either image_url or image_base64 is required")

    payload = {"scale": scale}
    if image_url:
        payload["image_url"] = image_url
    if image_base64:
        payload["image_base64"] = image_base64

    data = await self._request("POST", "/v3/upscale", json=payload)
    return UpscaleResult.from_response(data)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.12.6

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions cost and tier. Does not disclose behavior such as whether original is preserved, rate limits, or output format.

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?

Very concise single sentence with essential info. No fluff, but lacks structure like bullet points.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Simple tool with 2 parameters; cost and tier add context. However, no description of output format (expected since no output schema) leaves minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%; description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states upscaling/enhancing an image using AI. Distinguishable from siblings like generate_image or background_remove, though could be more specific.

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?

Provides cost and tier requirement ($0.15, Tier 1+), helpful context. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but siblings imply different operations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools