Skip to main content
Glama
sanliunanjue

Image Processor MCP Server

by sanliunanjue
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one generates code from images, and the other generates descriptions from images. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on the desired output type.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'process_image_to_' as a prefix, followed by the specific output type ('code' or 'description'). This naming scheme is predictable and enhances readability across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for an 'Image Processor' domain, which might imply broader capabilities like image editing, filtering, or analysis. The limited scope suggests potential gaps in functionality that could hinder agent workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for an image processing domain. It lacks basic operations such as image resizing, format conversion, filtering, or analysis tools, focusing only on generation tasks. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when broader image processing needs arise.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under ISC License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool processes images and generates code, but doesn't explain how it handles different image types, what the output format is (e.g., code snippet, full file), error handling, or any limitations (e.g., image size, supported languages beyond the schema). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise with a single sentence '处理图像并生成代码' that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

    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 complexity of image-to-code conversion, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the output looks like (e.g., code structure, error messages), how it handles ambiguous images, or any prerequisites (e.g., image format requirements). For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's already documented in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'instructions' modify code generation or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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?

    The description '处理图像并生成代码' clearly states the tool's purpose: processing images and generating code. It specifies both the verb ('处理' - process) and resource ('图像' - image) with the output ('代码' - code). However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'process_image_to_description', which suggests a similar input but different output type.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'process_image_to_description' or any context about when code generation is preferred over description generation. It lacks explicit usage scenarios or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool processes images and generates descriptions, but doesn't reveal important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what format the description output takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any extraneous information.

    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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address the behavioral aspects needed when annotations are absent, doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, and provides no information about the output format or structure. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

    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?

    The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage. All three parameters (image_url, detail_level, focus) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, enums, defaults, and requirements. The description doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '处理图像并生成描述' (process image and generate description). It specifies both the action (process) and resource (image) with a clear output (description). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'process_image_to_code', which processes images but generates code instead of descriptions.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'process_image_to_code' or any other context for choosing between image processing tools. The description simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

image-processor-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

image-processor-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sanliunanjue/image-processor-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server