kimi-read-image-mcp

by hlf20010508

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kimi_read_image

Analyze local images by sending them as base64 to a Kimi-compatible API. Optionally provide natural language instructions for the analysis.

Instructions

Analyze a local image file using the configured Kimi-compatible API.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "kimi_read_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Path to a local image file
`prompt`	No	Optional natural-language instruction for how to analyze the image
`workFolder`	No	Optional working directory used to resolve relative paths

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only says 'analyze' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. No mention of error handling, file format support, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is concise but may be overly terse, missing important details. However, it earns high marks for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how analysis results are presented. For a tool that likely outputs analysis data, this is a significant 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond parameter names and schema descriptions. It does not clarify the expected input format or how the optional 'prompt' and 'workFolder' modify behavior.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('analyze') and the resource ('local image file'), and specifies the API ('Kimi-compatible API'). However, it lacks specificity about what analysis entails (e.g., OCR, description, etc.) and does not distinguish from siblings because none are listed.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when this tool should be used, prerequisites (e.g., file existence, API key), or alternatives. Even without sibling tools, basic context is missing.

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

kimi_read_imageC