A
licenseNot graded
qualityF
maintenanceImage generation for Claude Code via ChatGPT subscription token. No API key needed.
3
MIT
chatgpt-desktop-image-mcp
by kuchris
Related Servers
Alternatives to chatgpt-desktop-image-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to generate images through the local ChatGPT Desktop App by automating the chat interface via CDP, saving PNGs to disk without requiring an OpenAI API key.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables generating images directly from Claude Code using the ChatGPT subscription's built-in Codex CLI and gpt-image-2, with no API key or separate credits.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMulti-provider image generation MCP server that enables image generation from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, or any MCP client using OpenAI, Google Gemini, Stable Diffusion, or a placeholder provider.1071 PyPI1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceGenerates and edits images through the Codex CLI using an existing ChatGPT subscription, with queued jobs, progress reporting, and artifact URLs for MCP clients.538 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceLocal MCP server that uses Playwright browser automation to enable Claude Code to generate images, create variations, expand, and remove backgrounds via Adobe Firefly, requiring manual sign-in once.116 npmMIT
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: generate_image produces an asset, image_status is a read-only diagnostic. The status tool is explicitly framed as the preflight/troubleshooting companion, so there is no risk of misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both names are snake_case and share the 'image' subject, but the conventions differ slightly: generate_image is verb_noun while image_status is noun_noun. Still predictable and readable, a minor deviation rather than an inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
Two tools is on the thin side, but the server's scope (generate one image, verify readiness) is genuinely narrow and both tools earn their place. Slightly under the typical 3-15 range but reasonable for the stated purpose.
Completeness4/5
Generation plus a status check covers the core workflow, and the tool notes edge cases like overwrites and serialization. Gaps are minor: no way to list or delete previously written PNGs, and no parameters for size/style beyond filename.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues