Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gthumb-mcp

gthumb-mcp

by larsupb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_image_info

Read image details such as dimensions, format, camera, date, GPS, and gThumb metadata like title, description, tags, and rating from a file path.

Instructions

Get image details: dimensions, format, camera, date, GPS, and gThumb metadata (title, description, tags, rating).

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": "get_image_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full burden. It implicitly reads as a non-mutating inspection call and discloses the metadata categories covered, but says nothing about failure behavior for non-image or missing paths, permissions, or whether the path must be in a catalog.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and a compact field list; every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return contract is covered, and the description usefully previews the metadata categories. The main gap is that the sole input parameter is never characterized, which matters for a tool keyed entirely on a file path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter ('path'), yet the description never mentions it — no format, whether it's absolute or catalog-relative, or what file types are accepted. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('image info') with an explicit enumeration of the fields returned (dimensions, format, camera, date, GPS, gThumb metadata). This makes it distinguishable from get_image (raw bytes) and find_images (search), though it never names those siblings directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting a single image's metadata. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus get_image, get_thumbnail, or find_images, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the path must be an existing file).

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