Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
display-image-mcp

display-image-mcp

by frizzy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

delete_image

Removes the stored image for a given profile and label so it is no longer served to displays. Use it to clean up obsolete or replaced display assets.

Instructions

Delete the image stored for (profile, label).

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": {
      "profile": "<profile>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "delete_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYes
profileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a mutating, key-scoped operation, but says nothing about permanence, idempotency, error behavior when the key is absent, or required permissions — significant gaps for a destructive tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits information the agent actually needs.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. Nothing tells the agent about failure modes, reversibility, or argument sourcing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only shows '(profile, label)' as a composite key, adding the relationship between the two params but no explanation of what a profile or label is, their format, or their source.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (delete the image) and pins down the exact key it operates on, '(profile, label)', which lets an agent distinguish it from list_images and render_image. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus when to use the sibling tools, no preconditions, and no mention of what happens if no image exists for the given key. The agent must infer all usage context.

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