Skip to main content
Glama

read_exif

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract flattened EXIF fields from a single image file across common camera formats, returning available camera, lens, exposure, GPS, and date metadata; unsupported files return a clear note.

Instructions

Read flattened EXIF fields for a single image file.

Best effort across jpg, jpeg, tif, tiff, png, dng, arw, raf, nef, cr2, cr3. A file with no EXIF data, or an unsupported extension, is not an error: fields comes back empty with a note explaining why.

Args: params (ReadExifInput): Validated input containing: - path (str): Path to one image file, must be inside an allowed --root

Returns: dict: { "schema_version": 1, "path": str, "fields": { "camera_make": str, "camera_model": str, "lens_model": str, "focal_length": str, "focal_length_35mm_equiv": str, "iso": str, "exposure_time": str, "f_number": str, "exposure_program": str, "date_time_original": str, "date_time": str, "width": str, "height": str, "orientation": str, "software": str, "gps_latitude": float, "gps_longitude": float, }, # only keys actually present in the file are included "note": str | None, # e.g. "no EXIF data found" } On error: {"schema_version": 1, "error": str}

Examples: - Use when: "What lens and settings were used for this specific frame?" - Don't use when: you want aggregates across many files (use library_stats)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: best-effort support across a named format list, the crucial non-error degradation path (empty fields plus a note for missing EXIF or unsupported extensions), and the --root sandbox constraint on path. It even documents the error return shape, so failure modes are predictable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and graceful-degradation behavior, which is the right ordering. The Args block largely restates the schema and the Returns block is verbose, but since no output schema exists, enumerating the field keys earns its space.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and only one input parameter, the description carries the return contract and does so fully: schema_version, path, present-only field keys, GPS as floats, the optional note, and the distinct error envelope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 description coverage is reported at 0% (the wrapper `params` object carries no description), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that `path` points to exactly one image file and must resolve inside an allowed --root. The nested schema property already says nearly the same thing, so the added value is real but partly duplicative.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read flattened EXIF fields") and bounds the scope to "a single image file," which separates it from the aggregate sibling library_stats. An agent can pick this over the other five siblings without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit "Use when" phrasing ("What lens and settings were used for this specific frame?") and an explicit "Don't use when" that names the alternative (library_stats) for cross-file aggregates. The routing decision is fully specified rather than inferred.

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