Skip to main content
Glama
runapi-ai

Recraft MCP Server

by runapi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

upscale_image

Upscale images with Recraft models via RunAPI, returning a task ID, status, and output URLs; optionally poll until completion.

Instructions

Create a Recraft task on RunAPI (upscale image). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoPoll until the task reaches a terminal status.
modelNoRunAPI model slug for this model line.
timeout_msNo
callback_urlNoDeclared type: string.
poll_interval_msNo
source_image_urlYesDeclared type: string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
    • addedInput schema / properties / callback_url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Declared type: string.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / model / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "recraft-crisp-upscale"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / poll_interval_ms / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_image_url / description
      Added value: +"Declared type: string."
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_image_url / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeout_ms / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "source_image_url"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (task id, status, output URLs), which is genuinely useful with no output schema, but says nothing about the async lifecycle, that wait=true blocks and polls, timeout behavior, cost, or any required credentials.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contract second. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a task-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the async model, polling semantics, and the wait flag. It covers only the return shape, leaving the core invocation behavior undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions no parameters at all. With only 67% schema coverage and source_image_url's schema description being a vacuous 'Declared type: string.', the description adds no meaning about what to pass or how wait/timeout_ms/poll_interval_ms/callback_url interact.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Create a Recraft task') and resource ('upscale image'), and even previews the return shape. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_task or remove_background, but the operation described is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance. For an async task-submission tool it never says how it relates to get_task for polling, or when wait=true vs wait=false is appropriate. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools