get_imageRetrieve an image's metadata, all annotations, and a signed 24-hour viewing URL using its image_id from an upload or image list.
Get one image's metadata, all annotations, and a signed viewing URL (valid 24h).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | Id of an image in Image Label: the imageId (a UUID string) returned by list_images or an upload. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Input schema / properties / image_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of an image in Image Label: the imageId (a UUID string) returned by list_images or an upload."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the returned viewing URL is signed and expires after 24h and that the full annotation set is included — a detail an agent must know before caching or reusing the URL.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the return payload and ends with the operationally important 24h URL caveat. No filler, no redundancy with the title.
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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, payload contents, and the URL expiry caveat. The only shortfall is the unaddressed overlap with view_image, which an agent choosing between the two would still have to guess at.
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% and the single image_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its UUID format and provenance. The description adds nothing beyond 'one image', so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Get one image') plus an explicit enumeration of the payload: metadata, all annotations, and a signed viewing URL. That is far more informative than the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling view_image, leaving the boundary between the two implicit.
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 never says when to call this instead of list_images or view_image, nor does it state prerequisites (an existing image_id from a listing or upload). The only usage signal is the singular 'one image', which an agent could infer from the required image_id anyway.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.