Skip to main content
Glama
multivon-ai

multivon-mcp

Official
by multivon-ai

eval_vqa_faithfulness

Verify whether an LLM's answer about an image is factually accurate by extracting and checking each claim against what's visible. Ideal for visual question answering and image captioning tasks.

Instructions

Check whether an LLM answer about an image is grounded in what's visible.

Image-grounded faithfulness. The vision judge extracts up to 3 factual claims from the answer, then verifies each one against the image. Score = fraction of claims that are accurate.

Use this for visual QA, image captioning, chart/diagram reading, and any LLM output that purports to describe an image.

Image input — exactly one of:

  • image: a local path, http(s) URL, or full data URI.

  • image_base64: raw base64 (no data: prefix); pair with mime_type (default "image/png").

Args: input: The question or prompt the LLM was answering. output: The LLM-generated answer to verify against the image. image: Path / URL / data URI for the image. image_base64: Alternative — raw base64 image bytes. mime_type: Mime type when using image_base64. Default "image/png". Other common values: "image/jpeg", "image/webp". judge_model: Provider:model for the vision judge. Must be vision-capable. Default "google:gemini-2.5-flash" (cheap). Other vision-capable options: "openai:gpt-4o-mini" or "anthropic:claude-sonnet-4-6" (not haiku — Haiku 4-5 is not vision-capable).

Returns: {"score": 0.0-1.0, "passed": bool, "reason": str, "threshold": float, "evaluator": "vqa_faithfulness"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes
outputYes
imageNo
image_base64No
mime_typeNoimage/png
judge_modelNogoogle:gemini-2.5-flash

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoring mechanism (fraction of accurate claims), the use of a vision judge model, and the return format. Does not mention side effects, but as a read-only evaluation tool, this is acceptable.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: summary, process, use cases, image input options, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, output schema textually described), the description is comprehensive. Covers all parameters, return values, and use cases. Does not mention error handling, but for an evaluation tool this is sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters including formats, defaults, and alternatives. Input and output are clearly described, image input options are detailed, and judge_model options are provided with examples.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if an LLM answer about an image is grounded in what's visible. It explains the process (extracts up to 3 claims, verifies each) and distinguishes from sibling tools like eval_faithfulness by focusing on image-grounded evaluation.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: visual QA, image captioning, chart/diagram reading, and any LLM output describing an image. Provides guidance on judge model selection (including not using Haiku). Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., for text-only faithfulness), but the context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/multivon-ai/multivon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server