exif-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes focused on different metadata types (EXIF, ICC, IHDR, IPTC, JFIF, XMP, GPS, orientation, thumbnail), but there is some overlap between 'read-exif' and 'read-metadata' since EXIF is a type of metadata, which could cause mild confusion. The 'orientation' and 'rotation-info' tools also cover similar ground, though with different detail levels.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb-noun pattern with 'read-' prefixes for metadata extraction tools (e.g., read-exif, read-icc, read-ihdr) and descriptive names for other functions (e.g., gps-coordinates, orientation, thumbnail). All names use kebab-case consistently, making them predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for extracting various types of image metadata, covering common formats like EXIF, ICC, and XMP, as well as specific functions like GPS and thumbnails. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose without unnecessary duplication, fitting the domain appropriately.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for reading and extracting image metadata, including all major standards (EXIF, ICC, IHDR, IPTC, JFIF, XMP) and practical utilities (GPS coordinates, orientation, thumbnails). There are no obvious gaps for the server's purpose, as it supports both broad and specific metadata access without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 11 of 11 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 BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" 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.
View related servers

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 full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool reads EXIF data but doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., for invalid images), performance characteristics, or output format. The mention of 'optional tag filtering' hints at behavior but lacks specifics on how filtering works or what happens if no tags match.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read EXIF data from an image') and adds a useful qualifier ('with optional tag filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
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 (2 parameters with a nested object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the image input options (path, url, etc.), the tag filtering mechanism, or what the tool returns. For a tool with such rich input possibilities and no structured documentation elsewhere, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds little. It mentions 'optional tag filtering' which loosely relates to the 'pick' parameter, but doesn't explain what tags are available or how filtering is applied. The 'image' parameter is not addressed at all, leaving its complex nested structure (with 'kind', 'path', 'url', etc.) undocumented.
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 action ('Read EXIF data') and resource ('from an image'), with additional scope ('with optional tag filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read-icc' or 'read-xmp' by specifying EXIF data specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'read-metadata' which might be broader.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-metadata' (which might read all metadata types) or 'gps-coordinates' (which might extract just GPS data). The description mentions optional tag filtering but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what tags are available.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or what IHDR metadata entails (e.g., image dimensions, color type). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, what IHDR metadata includes, or the return format, leaving critical gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'image' parameter or its nested properties (kind, path, url, data, buffer). It doesn't explain what IHDR metadata is or how the image input should be provided, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'IHDR metadata from an image', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata', which likely read different types of image metadata, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for reading IHDR metadata specifically, leaving usage unclear.
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 it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance constraints like rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted 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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter with nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or input semantics, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'image' represents, the meaning of 'kind' values (path, url, base64, buffer), or how to structure the input object, leaving parameters largely undocumented.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed rotation and flip information from image orientation', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'gps-coordinates' or 'read-exif' by focusing specifically on orientation data, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like 'orientation'.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'orientation' or 'read-metadata', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.
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 mentions output formats but fails to describe critical behaviors like error handling for images without thumbnails, performance or size limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that processes images.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and output, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits, or output specifics, making it inadequate for a tool that handles image processing with multiple input options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It implies 'image' is required and 'url' affects output format, but doesn't explain the 'image' object's structure, 'kind' enum meanings, or how 'url' parameter influences the result, leaving key parameters poorly documented.
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 action ('extract'), resource ('embedded thumbnail from image'), and output format ('base64 data or URL'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata' that might also handle image data extraction, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an image with an embedded thumbnail, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read-exif' that might overlap in functionality, offering no usage boundaries.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts GPS coordinates but doesn't mention potential issues like missing metadata, error handling, format of returned coordinates, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing how it behaves beyond the basic action.
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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Extract GPS coordinates (latitude/longitude) from image metadata.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, uses no unnecessary words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and source.
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's complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how coordinates are returned, what happens if no GPS data is present, or details about the 'image' parameter. For a tool that extracts data from images, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 information about parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object 'image'), the schema alone defines the structure (e.g., 'kind' with enum values). The description doesn't explain what 'image' represents or how to use the 'kind' options, so it doesn't compensate for the low coverage, resulting in a baseline score.
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: 'Extract GPS coordinates (latitude/longitude) from image metadata.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('GPS coordinates'), and source ('image metadata'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata', which might also handle GPS data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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. With sibling tools like 'read-exif' and 'read-metadata' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection in this context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' a value, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid images), performance characteristics, or authentication needs. The description is minimal and lacks context about what the tool actually does beyond the basic purpose.
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 sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the output range. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (1 parameter with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the input format, output details beyond the range 1-8, or how orientation values map to image rotations. For a tool that likely reads image metadata, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.
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 semantics beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the 'image' parameter or its nested properties (kind, path, url, etc.). With 1 parameter and high schema complexity (nested object with enums), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, but the baseline is 3 since it doesn't mislead about parameters.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'image orientation value', specifying the output range (1-8). It distinguishes from siblings like 'gps-coordinates' or 'rotation-info' by focusing specifically on orientation values rather than other metadata or transformations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'read-exif' might also provide orientation).
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. With siblings like 'read-exif' (which might include orientation) and 'rotation-info' (which sounds related), there's no indication of when this specific orientation tool is preferred. No context about prerequisites or limitations is mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'read' implies a non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if no ICC data is found), performance aspects, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.
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 (1 nested parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what ICC metadata entails, how results are returned, or error conditions. For a tool that reads specialized metadata, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.
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 semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. With 1 parameter (a nested object for 'image'), the schema defines the structure but not the meaning. The baseline is 3 because schema coverage is low (<50%), but the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'image' represents or how to use the 'kind' enum options.
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 verb 'read' and the resource 'ICC metadata from an image', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'read-exif' or 'read-xmp' by focusing on ICC metadata, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 like 'read-metadata' (which might include ICC) or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an image with ICC data, or exclusions for when it's not applicable.
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 full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the image lacks IPTC data), performance characteristics, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. 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 (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what IPTC metadata includes, the return format, or error cases. For a metadata-reading tool with rich input structure, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 mentions 'image' but doesn't explain the parameter's structure or the 'kind' enum values (path, url, base64, buffer). With 0% schema description coverage, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, though the single parameter is implied. Baseline 3 applies as the schema handles the structure.
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 action ('Read') and resource ('IPTC metadata from an image'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata' that also read metadata, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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 like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata'. It lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
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 a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid image formats), performance aspects, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 handling image metadata and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover error handling, output details, or how JFIF metadata differs from other types, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective tool use.
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 semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It does not explain what 'image' represents or the meaning of its nested properties (e.g., 'kind', 'path', 'url'). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of any clarification keeps it at an adequate level.
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 verb 'read' and the resource 'JFIF metadata from an image', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata', which might handle similar metadata types, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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, such as 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata' from the sibling list. It lacks context about JFIF-specific use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with complex input schema and no output schema.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (2 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error cases, or how to interpret the 'image' object, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'all or specified metadata segments,' which hints at the 'segments' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'image' object or its properties. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('metadata segments from an image'), specifying it can read 'all or specified' segments. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read-exif' or 'read-icc' by being more general, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., read-exif, read-icc). The description implies it can read multiple segments, but doesn't advise on alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens with invalid inputs. The mention of 'extended XMP segments' adds some context but is insufficient for a tool with complex input structure.
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 at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key option. Every word serves a purpose in this compact form.
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 (nested objects in input schema, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how to interpret the 'image' parameter's complex structure. For a tool that reads metadata with multiple input types, 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions 'image' and 'extended XMP segments' which map to the two parameters, but provides no details about the complex 'image' object structure or what 'extended' actually means. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names.
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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'XMP metadata from an image', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'read-exif' or 'read-iptc' by specifying XMP metadata, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read-metadata' which might be broader.
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 like 'read-exif' or 'read-metadata'. It mentions 'extended XMP segments' as an option but doesn't explain when this is necessary or beneficial compared to other metadata reading tools.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![exif-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stass/exif-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stass/exif-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![exif-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stass/exif-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stass/exif-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/stass/exif-mcp'

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