Adds an image to a report body using external URLs, embedded images, or database fields.
Add an Image to /. image_source: External (URL), Embedded (EmbeddedImage Name), Database (=Fields!Photo.Value).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | Yes | ||
| left | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| image_source | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions adding an image and the source types, omitting critical traits like whether images can be overwritten, required permissions, or side effects on existing items. No return value or error conditions are described.
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?
The description is a single sentence with parenthetical examples, which is concise and to the point. It could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing parameters), but the brevity is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a tool with 8 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what each parameter represents (e.g., path vs value, coordinate system for top/left), leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill. The completeness is inadequate for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only explains the 'image_source' parameter by listing its enum options. The other 7 required parameters (top, left, name, path, value, width, height) receive no semantic explanation, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names without context.
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 clearly states 'Add an Image to <Body>/<ReportItems>' with concrete verb 'Add', specific resource 'Image', and location. It also explains the three image_source options, providing immediate clarity on what the tool does and differentiating it from other add tools.
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?
The description implies usage through the image_source enum but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'add_embedded_image' or other add tools. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mafaq229/pbirb-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server