A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceA multi-provider vision model MCP server with automatic failover, providing a single tool analyze_image for image recognition and understanding across multiple models.
MIT
Vision-Multi MCP Server
by snow930
Related Servers
Alternatives to Vision-Multi MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that provides an analyze_image tool using OpenAI-compatible vision LLMs to describe images from file paths, URLs, or base64 data.19 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for analyzing images using multiple vision LLM providers (OpenCode, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and custom OpenAI-compatible endpoints). Provides tools to analyze single or multiple images, list providers, and test vision capabilities.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA versatile MCP server that adds vision capabilities (image analysis, OCR, image/video generation) to AI models lacking native vision, with support for multiple providers and automatic task routing.1-
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server for image analysis using any OpenAI-compatible API endpoint, enabling AI agents to analyze images via a single tool.13 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for analyzing images using OpenRouter vision models, offering capabilities like automatic image resizing, model configuration, and handling custom queries about images.10MIT
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: list_providers shows available backend configurations, while analyze_image performs image analysis. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: list_providers and analyze_image. This is a predictable and uniform naming convention.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the set is minimal but well-suited to the server's focused purpose of image analysis with configurable providers. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function, so the count feels appropriate rather than thin.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow is covered: list available providers and analyze an image, with the ability to select a provider or model. A minor gap is the lack of provider management operations, but these are typically handled by configuration files rather than MCP tools.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues