Skip to main content
Glama
juanmicrosoft

image-gen-mcp

by juanmicrosoft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

edit_image

Idempotent

Create a new image from a source image and a prompt, leaving the original unchanged. Provide an operation ID and prompt; source can be an artifact ID or PNG path.

Instructions

Create one new billable image from exactly one explicit source_artifact_id or approved absolute PNG source_path. Provide a self-contained prompt and new operation UUID. The source remains unchanged; masks, URLs and multiple references are unsupported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNo1536x864
promptYes
qualityNohigh
source_pathNoAbsolute .png path inside an explicitly configured input root. Choose exactly one source; omit source_artifact_id when using this path.
operation_idYes
source_artifact_idNoChoose exactly one source. Omit source_path when using this artifact ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / oneOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "source_artifact_id"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "source_path"
-    ]
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_artifact_id / description
      Added value: +"Choose exactly one source. Omit source_path when using this artifact ID."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_path / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute .png path inside an explicitly configured input root."New value: +"Absolute .png path inside an explicitly configured input root. Choose exactly one source; omit source_artifact_id when using this path."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the call is billable, the source image is left unchanged, and several input shapes (masks, URLs, multiple references) are rejected. It doesn't describe the async/polling behavior or what the call returns, which matters for a create-and-bill operation.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action and its source constraint are front-loaded, followed by required inputs, then limitations. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers cost, source immutability, parameter conflicts and input limits well. The main gap is that it never says the operation is asynchronous or that get_operation should be used to retrieve the resulting image, which an agent would need to complete the task.

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 only 33% (source_path and source_artifact_id documented), but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: prompt must be 'self-contained' and operation_id must be 'new'. The size/quality parameters are single-value enums with defaults, so they need no prose; the mutual-exclusion rule for the two source params largely repeats the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create one new billable image') plus the required input ('from exactly one explicit source_artifact_id or approved absolute PNG source_path'). The source-based framing implicitly separates it from generate_image, but the sibling is never named, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It gives clear operational constraints: exactly one source, a self-contained prompt, a new operation UUID, and an explicit when-not list ('masks, URLs and multiple references are unsupported'). It stops short of naming generate_image as the alternative when no source exists, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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