openai-images-mcp
openai-images-mcp
使用 OpenAI 的 gpt-image 和 DALL·E 模型生成并编辑图像,并将其作为 Model Context Protocol 工具公开。支持 gpt-image-1.5、gpt-image-1、gpt-image-1-mini、dall-e-3 和 dall-e-2。
工具
工具 | 用途 | 模型 |
| 列出支持的模型及其功能(尺寸、质量、编辑/变体支持)。 | 全部 |
| 根据文本提示生成一张或多张图像。 |
|
| 使用提示词和可选遮罩编辑现有图像。 |
|
| 生成图像的变体。 | 仅 |
所有生成的图像都会保存到磁盘。在任何调用中设置 return_image_content: true 即可同时以 MCP 图像块的形式接收图像(当客户端需要“查看”结果时很有用,但会增加大量 token)。
Related MCP server: GPT Image MCP Server
安装
npm install
npm run build配置您的 MCP 客户端
Claude Desktop / Claude Code
添加到 claude_desktop_config.json(或您项目的 .mcp.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"dalle": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/dalle-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"OPENAI_API_KEY": "sk-...",
"DALLE_OUTPUT_DIR": "/absolute/path/where/images/save"
}
}
}
}环境变量
变量 | 用途 |
| 必需。 您的 OpenAI API 密钥。 |
| 可选。覆盖 OpenAI 基础 URL。 |
| 可选。 |
| 可选。 |
| 可选。保存图像的默认目录。默认为 |
| 可选。工具调用省略 |
工具参考
generate_image
必需:prompt。
可选:model, size, quality, n, background, output_format, output_compression, moderation, style, user, output_dir, filename_prefix, return_image_content。
模型特定说明:
GPT Image (
gpt-image-1.5,gpt-image-1,gpt-image-1-mini): 尺寸auto|1024x1024|1536x1024|1024x1536,质量auto|low|medium|high。支持background,output_format,output_compression,moderation。DALL·E 3: 尺寸
1024x1024|1792x1024|1024x1792,质量standard|hd,n必须为 1,支持style。DALL·E 2: 尺寸
256x256|512x512|1024x1024,质量standard。
edit_image
必需:prompt, images(绝对路径,GPT Image 最多支持 16 张)。
可选:mask(透明像素表示可编辑区域),以及上述生成选项。DALL·E 3 不支持编辑。
create_variation
仅限 DALL·E 2。必需:image(PNG 格式,正方形,小于 4MB)。
可选:n, size (256x256|512x512|1024x1024), output_dir, filename_prefix, return_image_content。
list_models
无参数。返回一个描述每个模型尺寸、质量和支持选项的 JSON 文档 —— 方便调用者在选择参数前查阅。
开发
npm run dev # run with tsx, no build step
npm run build # tsc to dist/
npm start # node dist/index.js该服务器通过 stdio 使用 MCP 协议通信,因此您可以使用任何兼容 MCP 的客户端驱动它,或者通过将 JSON-RPC 消息管道传输到 node dist/index.js 来手动驱动。
注意事项
DALL·E 2 和 DALL·E 3 已被 OpenAI 弃用,支持将于 2026-05-12 结束;请优先使用 GPT Image 系列。
GPT Image 模型始终返回 base64 数据;DALL·E 模型也会被要求返回 base64,以便无需第二次 HTTP 往返即可保存文件。
Available Tools
4 toolscreate_variationCreate image variationA
Generate variations of an existing image using DALL·E 2 (the only model that supports variations). Results are saved to disk and file paths are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes | Absolute path to the source image (PNG, square, <4MB). | |
| n | No | Number of variations to generate (default 1). | |
| size | No | Output size. Default 1024x1024. | |
| user | No | ||
| output_dir | No | ||
| filename_prefix | No | ||
| return_image_content | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are saved to disk and file paths are returned, but does not cover potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences deliver key information efficiently with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions file paths returned, covering the essential output. With 7 parameters and no annotations, it could elaborate on return format or usage of optional parameters, but is largely sufficient for a simple generation tool.
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 coverage is 43%, with only image and size having descriptions. The description adds context that results are saved to disk, implying output_dir and filename_prefix usage, but does not fully explain user or return_image_content. Partially compensates for gaps.
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?
The description clearly states the tool generates variations of an existing image using DALL·E 2, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_image and edit_image by highlighting the model and purpose.
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 explicitly mentions using DALL·E 2 as the only model supporting variations, guiding when to use this tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but provides clear context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
edit_imageEdit imageC
Edit one or more existing images using a text prompt and optional mask. Supports gpt-image-1.5, gpt-image-1, gpt-image-1-mini, and dall-e-2. Results are saved to disk and file paths are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Description of the desired edit. | |
| images | Yes | Absolute paths to input image files (png/jpg/webp). Up to 16 for GPT Image. | |
| mask | No | Absolute path to a mask image. Transparent pixels indicate areas to edit. Must match the first input image's dimensions. | |
| model | No | Model to use. DALL·E 3 does not support edits. Defaults to env DALLE_DEFAULT_MODEL or gpt-image-1.5. | |
| size | No | ||
| quality | No | ||
| n | No | ||
| background | No | ||
| output_format | No | ||
| output_compression | No | ||
| input_fidelity | No | GPT Image only. 'high' preserves more of the original image. | |
| user | No | ||
| output_dir | No | ||
| filename_prefix | No | ||
| return_image_content | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions saving to disk and returning file paths, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as destructiveness, permissions, or model-specific behaviors. The description is minimal.
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?
The description is concise with three sentences and front-loads the main action. It could be more structured but is efficient.
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?
Given 15 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter details or usage contexts, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 only 33%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions 'text prompt' and 'optional mask', which are already captured in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for the other 13 parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'edit' and the resource 'existing images' using a text prompt and optional mask. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_image' by focusing on existing images, but does not explicitly contrast.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternative tools for generation or variation, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_imageGenerate imageB
Create one or more images from a text prompt using OpenAI's image models (gpt-image-1.5, gpt-image-1, gpt-image-1-mini, dall-e-3, dall-e-2). Images are saved to disk and file paths are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Text description of the image to generate. | |
| model | No | Model to use. Defaults to env DALLE_DEFAULT_MODEL or gpt-image-1.5. | |
| size | No | Image dimensions. Allowed values depend on the model (see list_models). | |
| quality | No | GPT Image: auto|low|medium|high. DALL·E 3: standard|hd. DALL·E 2: standard. | |
| n | No | Number of images to generate. DALL·E 3 supports only 1. | |
| background | No | GPT Image only. Use 'transparent' with png/webp for alpha channel output. | |
| output_format | No | GPT Image only. Output file format. | |
| output_compression | No | GPT Image only. Compression % for jpeg/webp (0-100). | |
| moderation | No | GPT Image only. Content moderation strictness. | |
| style | No | DALL·E 3 only. Vivid = hyper-real/dramatic, natural = more muted. | |
| user | No | End-user identifier for OpenAI abuse monitoring. | |
| output_dir | No | Absolute directory to save generated images. Defaults to $DALLE_OUTPUT_DIR or ~/dalle-mcp-output. | |
| filename_prefix | No | Prefix used when naming saved files (alphanumeric/underscore/dash). | |
| return_image_content | No | If true, return the generated images as MCP image content blocks in addition to saving them to disk. Adds significant tokens. Default: false. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions images are saved to disk and file paths returned, but lacks details on API calls, costs, or side effects. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.
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?
Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is too minimal. Does not explain return format sufficiently (e.g., optional image content), error handling, or directory behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter information beyond what schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states 'Create one or more images from a text prompt' and lists specific models, distinguishing it from siblings like create_variation (variations) and edit_image (edits).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_variation or edit_image. Agent must infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_modelsList image modelsA
List supported OpenAI image models with their capabilities (sizes, qualities, edit/variation support, etc.). Use this before calling generate_image or edit_image to check which options a model accepts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, which is expected for a listing operation. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It could mention the output format, but it's fairly complete for a simple list operation.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported OpenAI image models') and distinguishes from siblings by stating to use this tool before generate_image or edit_image to check model capabilities.
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 explicitly advises to use this tool before calling generate_image or edit_image, providing clear context. It does not list when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough.
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.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
create_variation - First observed
edit_image - First observed
generate_image - First observed
list_models
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: generating new images, editing existing ones, creating variations, and listing supported models. There is no overlap or confusion between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (create_variation, edit_image, generate_image, list_models), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of generating and manipulating images via OpenAI's APIs. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary duplication or gaps.
The set covers the full lifecycle of image creation: generating, editing, and creating variations, along with a model listing tool for configuration. No obvious missing functionality for the intended domain.
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
MCP server for NanoBanana AI image generation and editing
MCP server for Midjourney AI image generation and editing
MCP server for Flux AI image generation
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that allows users to generate, edit, and create variations of images through OpenAI's DALL-E API, supporting both DALL-E 2 and DALL-E 3 models.49-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables text-to-image generation and editing using OpenAI's gpt-image-1 model, supporting multiple output formats, quality settings, and background options.68-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables image generation and editing using OpenAI's DALL-E models with support for text prompts, inpainting, and outpainting. It includes advanced features like automatic aspect ratio mapping and intelligent file management to handle large image payloads.62 npm1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides tools to generate, edit, and create variations of images using OpenAI DALL-E models.-