Gemini MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gemini_analyze_image

Provide an image file path to analyze its content with Gemini Vision. Customize analysis with an optional prompt and model.

Instructions

Analyze an image file with Gemini Vision

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": {
      "imagePath": "<imagePath>"
    },
    "name": "gemini_analyze_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No	Model name (default: gemini-3.1-pro-preview)
`prompt`	No	Prompt for image analysis (default: Describe this image in detail)
`imagePath`	Yes	Absolute path to the image file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 29, 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, placing full burden on the description. The description only states the action and technology, without disclosing behavioral traits such as return format, file reading behavior, supported formats, or model defaults. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or expectations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, earning a 4 for being concise yet somewhat minimal.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the output is (e.g., text description, confidence scores), any constraints (e.g., file size limits), or how the result is returned. Essential context is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional context about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., defaults, meaning of 'prompt'). It neither clarifies nor enriches the parameter semantics.

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 'Analyze an image file with Gemini Vision' uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('image file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle audio, video, PDF, URL, etc. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for image files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_analyze_audio or gemini_chat. No guidance is given on prerequisites or conditions, relying solely on the tool name and sibling names for differentiation.

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