Remove unwanted pixels from image edges by specifying amounts to trim from top, left, right, and bottom.
Crop pixels off the edges of an image, in place. Amounts are pixels to remove from each side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Pixels to remove from the top edge | |
| left | No | Pixels to remove from the left edge | |
| right | No | Pixels to remove from the right edge | |
| bottom | No | Pixels to remove from the bottom edge | |
| view_id | Yes | View ID to crop |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'in place', meaning the original image is modified. With no annotations provided, this is valuable. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, whether it affects clones, or what happens if crop amounts exceed image dimensions.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core action, the in-place behavior, and the parameter semantics are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 simple 5-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details around edge cases (e.g., cropping more pixels than the image has) and whether the operation can be undone. No output schema exists, so return value behavior is not disclosed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the crucial context that amounts are 'pixels to remove from each side', which reinforces the schema descriptions but doesn't add new information beyond them.
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 states a specific verb ('Crop'), a resource ('an image'), and the key behavior ('in place'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clone_image or get_image_dimensions. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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 when to use it: when you need to remove pixels from image edges. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like clone_image for non-destructive cropping, but the context is reasonably clear for a simple operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.