Extract text lines, pixel bounding boxes, and confidence scores from image files via Tesseract OCR. Use it to digitize scanned pages and verify extracted text.
An image file read by Tesseract: its lines (boxes in pixels) and their confidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| psm | No | ||
| lang | No | eng | |
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output includes line boxes in pixels and confidence, which is useful, but says nothing about dependencies (Tesseract engine requirement), error behavior on unreadable images, or whether it is a pure read operation. Significant gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single compact sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is front-loaded with an awkward construction rather than a clear imperative statement of what the tool does, reducing scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain returns and behavior. It partially covers returns (lines, pixel boxes, confidence) but leaves all parameters and operational context unexplained, which is inadequate for a 3-parameter OCR tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions them. 'path' is self-evident, but 'psm' (page segmentation mode) and 'lang' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent cannot know their meaning or valid values. The Tesseract reference only faintly hints at their relevance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does state a verb and resource (reading an image file via Tesseract) and even hints at the return shape (lines, boxes in pixels, confidence). However, the phrasing is awkward and quasi-tautological ('An image file read by Tesseract'), and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like read_page or words_in, which likely also perform OCR-like extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use read_image versus read_page, read_pages, words_in, or find. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for standalone image files rather than PDF pages. No preconditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.