Image Label MCP Server

Replace all annotations

replace_annotations

Destructive

Replace all annotations on an image with a new list, or clear them by passing an empty list.

Instructions

Replace ALL annotations on an image with the given list. Pass an empty list to clear them.

Input Schema

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.
`annotations`	Yes	The complete new list of annotations; every existing annotation not in it is deleted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.1Oct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / annotations / description

Added value: +"The complete new list of annotations; every existing annotation not in it is deleted."

addedInput schema / properties / image_id / description

Added value: +"Id of an image in Image Label: the imageId (a UUID string) returned by list_images or an upload."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by emphasizing that ALL annotations are replaced and that an empty list clears them, though it does not discuss reversibility or permissions.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the key action and then provide the important empty-list edge case. There is no redundant or filler text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given rich annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to understand the tool's effect. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that the annotations list is the complete replacement set and that an empty list clears, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (replace), resource (annotations), and scope (ALL on an image). The all-caps scope and empty-list clearing behavior distinguish it from add_annotations and remove_annotations without needing sibling names.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly establishes when to use it: replacing the entire annotation set, with an explicit note that an empty list clears annotations. It does not explicitly name add_annotations or remove_annotations as alternatives for append or partial deletion, but the usage context is clear.

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