vision-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_image

Analyze images by sending them with a text prompt to a vision model, enabling non-vision models to extract and understand visual information.

Instructions

Send an image (URL or local path) with a prompt to a vision model via OpenRouter

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>",
      "image": "<image>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes	Instruction for the vision model
`image`	Yes	Local file path or http/https URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'via OpenRouter,' hinting at an external API call, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network dependency, costs, latency) or any required permissions. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool that sends data externally.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. While it could be slightly more structured, it has no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, which would be useful for an agent. However, for a straightforward tool, it meets minimum viability.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters: it merely restates that image can be a URL or local path and that prompt is an instruction. It does not explain format constraints or other nuances.

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?

The description clearly states the action (send), the resource (image with prompt), and the target (vision model via OpenRouter). It uses specific verbs and nouns, distinguishing it from the sibling 'screen' tool, which likely performs a different function.

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?

The description implies usage when one needs to analyze an image with a prompt, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling 'screen' is mentioned but not contrasted.

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

Deploy Server