Skip to main content
Glama
micfogas

Pic Nicked MCP

by micfogas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Pic Nicked MCP

Search. See. Save. – An MCP that nicks Google photos (pics) into your chat.

Usage & Requirements

Requirements

  • Node.js v20+

  • Google Cloud Platform account (free tier sufficient)

  • Devin

Setup Guide

Follow these steps to set up this MCP:

Create Google Custom search engine

  1. Go to Google Programmable Search Engine

  2. "Add" to create a new search engine

  3. In "Sites to search", enter *.reddit.com/ for example, to include reddit.com in your possible search results (note: you can only add up to 50 TLDs)

  4. Name your search engine (e.g., "PicNick")

  5. Enable "Image search" option

  6. Click "Create"

  7. Copy the Search engine ID - save this

Get Google API Key

  1. Go to Google Cloud Console API Credentials

  2. Select a project

  3. Click "+ CREATE CREDENTIALS" then "API key"

  4. Copy the generated API key

Configure MCP

Add the following configuration to your MCP settings:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "googleImagesSearch": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@micfogas/mcp-picnick"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "google-api-key",
        "SEARCH_ENGINE_ID": "search-engine-id"
      },
      "autoApprove": ["persist_image", "search_image"]
    }
  }
}

Replace google-api-key and search-engine-id appropriately.

Example

Ask your assistant to search for images

Find 5 images of your mom

Request additional results

Find 5 more images

Save a specific result to your project

Save the 3rd image to the "yourmom" folder

The MCP will display the results as images in your chat history, and you can save them to your project.

Quick start:

  1. Copy .envrc.example to .envrc and add your Google API credentials

  2. Run pnpm install && pnpm dev

  3. Update your MCP configuration for development:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "googleImagesSearch": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/abs/path/to/project/src/index.js", "--debug", "--pretty-print"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "google-api-key",
        "SEARCH_ENGINE_ID": "search-engine-id"
      },
      "autoApprove": ["search_image", "persist_image"]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: web-search

Tools

🔍 search_image - Find images

  • query (req) - exampple, your mom

  • count (1-10, Def. 2) - How many

  • safe ('off'/'medium'/'high') - safefilter

  • startIndex - because

💾 persist_image - Download and save images to your project

  • url (req) - image to dl

  • targetPath (req) - Where to save it

Available Tools

2 tools
persist_imageA

Store image at URL to folder relative to current workspace. If targetPath does not exist, the tool will create it automatically.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL of the image
targetPathYesFolder where to save the image (relative to the current workspace)
workspacePathYesThe current workspace absolute path

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (auto-creation of targetPath), but does not mention what happens if the file already exists (overwrite?) or what occurs if the URL is invalid. This leaves important side effects unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste. The key information is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior follows naturally. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core operation and auto-creation, but omits details about how the image file is named (e.g., derived from URL) and potential error handling. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, these gaps could mislead an agent about the exact output.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating that targetPath need not pre-exist and will be created automatically. This clarifies the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's 'Folder where to save the image'.

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 ('Store image at URL') and the destination ('folder relative to current workspace'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_image' by focusing on persistence rather than discovery.

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?

The description gives clear context: it saves an image to a workspace-relative folder and automatically creates the target directory if missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'relative to current workspace' and 'auto-create' instructions provide sufficient usage context for most cases.

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

search_imageC

Search the image(s) online

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
safeNoSafe search setting (default: off)
countNoNumber of results to return (1-10, default: 2)
queryYesSearch query for images
startIndexNoStarting index of next search result page (not needed for initial search request)

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention safe search settings, pagination, result limits, or any side effects. The agent is left unaware of how the search behaves or what the response contains.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it is too sparse to be truly helpful, making it concise but under-specified.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention the result format, pagination behavior, or safe search implications, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden effectively.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Search the image(s) online' identifies a clear verb and resource, but it is vague about the scope and output. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'persist_image' beyond the search action, and 'online' adds little specificity.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'persist_image' exists, but the description does not mention any selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.2
    • First observedpersist_image
    • First observedsearch_image
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

search_image and persist_image have completely distinct purposes: one looks up images online, the other saves a specific image locally. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the exact same verb_noun pattern with snake_case (search_image, persist_image), making the naming predictable and consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal and is on the thin side. The count is acceptable if the scope is strictly search-and-save, but it is borderline for a utility server.

Completeness3/5

The core operations (search and persist) are covered, but there is no way to list, delete, or otherwise manage persisted images. This is a notable gap in the image lifecycle, making the surface feel incomplete.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers