Skip to main content
Glama
xoy8n

WebP Conversion MCP Server

by xoy8n

WebP Conversion MCP Server

This project is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that converts image files to WebP format.

Features

  • Convert PNG, JPG, and JPEG files to WebP

  • Support for single image or batch image conversion

  • Option to configure quality and lossless compression

  • Option to keep original files

  • Provides a detailed report of the conversion result

Installation & Execution

npx -y @xoy8n/webp-converter@latest

Cursor mcp.json Configuration

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "webp-converter": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@xoy8n/webp-converter@latest"]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: WebP Batch Converter

MCP Tool List

1. convert_to_webp

Converts a single image file to WebP format.

Parameters:

  • image_path: Path to the image file to convert

  • base_path: Base directory path

  • quality: WebP quality setting (default: 95)

  • lossless: Whether to use lossless compression (default: false)

  • keep_original: Whether to retain the original file (default: false)

Returns:

  • Conversion success status

  • Input/output file paths

  • File size before/after conversion

  • Applied quality and compression settings

2. batch_convert_to_webp

Converts multiple image files to WebP format in one go.

Parameters:

  • image_paths: Array of paths to image files to convert

  • base_path: Base directory path (optional)

  • quality: WebP quality setting (default: 95)

  • lossless: Whether to use lossless compression (default: false)

  • keep_original: Whether to retain the original files (default: false)

Returns:

  • Array of conversion results for each image file

How to Use

  1. Select the image files you want to convert.

  2. Run the convert_to_webp or batch_convert_to_webp command via the MCP tools.

  3. Check the conversion results.

MCP Badge

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
batch_convert_to_webpD
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qualityNo
losslessNo
base_pathNo
image_pathsYes
keep_originalNo

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

convert_to_webpD
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qualityNo
losslessNo
base_pathYes
image_pathYes
keep_originalNo

TDQS

D1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Tool has no description.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.16
    • First observedbatch_convert_to_webp
    • First observedconvert_to_webp

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Despite lacking descriptions, the names clearly distinguish between single and batch conversion, reducing ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case ('convert_to_webp', 'batch_convert_to_webp').

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels thin for a conversion domain, but it covers the essential single and batch operations.

Completeness3/5

Basic conversion functionality is present, but missing tools for settings, status, or output management, making it minimally complete.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers