Picsha AI MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_rendered_asset_url

Generate a dynamic delivery URL for any asset with customizable transformation parameters like width, height, format, and smart crop.

Instructions

Generate a dynamic delivery URL for an asset with transformation parameters (e.g. width, height, format, smart crop)

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "get_rendered_asset_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The unique ID of the asset
`params`	Yes	Query parameters string for transformations (e.g. 'w=500&h=500&fmt=webp&crop=face')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.12May 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling when the asset ID is invalid, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the URL generation involves network calls.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description adequately conveys the tool's core function of generating a URL, but it lacks detail on return format, error conditions, or any side effects. Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, it is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example of transformation parameters but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a dynamic delivery URL for an asset with transformation parameters. The verb 'generate' and resource 'dynamic delivery URL' are specific, and the scope is well-defined with examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_asset' which retrieves asset metadata.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the array of sibling tools, explicit usage guidance would be beneficial.

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

Deploy Server