easysociable-mcp

Get image

get_image

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch metadata and public R2/CDN delivery URL for an image asset by imageId. Inspect dimensions, content hash, and rights status before binding to slide slots.

Instructions

Fetch metadata and public R2/CDN delivery URL for a specific image asset by imageId. Call to inspect dimensions, content hash, and rightsStatus before binding to slide slots. Alternatives: Use list_images to search assets across media library. Read-only query scoped to workspace owner. Returns full Image entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`imageId`	Yes	The unique image asset identifier to retrieve.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Public delivery URL.
`imageId`	No	Image asset ID.
`rightsStatus`	No	Rights status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17Oct 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "imageId": {
+      "description": "Image asset ID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rightsStatus": {
+      "description": "Rights status.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Public delivery URL.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / imageId / description
```
Added value: +"The unique image asset identifier to retrieve."
```
First observedv0.1.13Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context (workspace-owner scoping, that the URL is public R2/CDN delivery), though 'Read-only query' largely restates the annotation. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Front-loads the core action and output, then usage, then alternatives, then scope in a compact block. Every sentence carries distinct information (purpose, inspection target, alternative sibling, scope) with 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?

All parameters are documented, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists so return-shape detail is not required. The brief mention of returning the 'full Image entity' plus scoping notes make it complete enough for a single-ID lookup, with only marginal room to elaborate on auth or error cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter, and the schema's description for imageId ('The unique image asset identifier to retrieve.') already has 100% coverage. The description confirms retrieval is keyed 'by imageId' but adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 (fetch) and resource (image asset metadata + public R2/CDN delivery URL) tied to an imageId. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_images, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('inspect dimensions, content hash, and rightsStatus before binding to slide slots') and names the alternative ('Use list_images to search assets across media library'). It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or other near-neighbors like get_icon/get_gradient, but the routing intent is clear.

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