Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bannerbear MCP Server

Bannerbear MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List image templates

list_image_templates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a paginated list of Bannerbear image templates in a workspace to select a design for automated image generation.

Instructions

GET /v5/image_templates. Current Bannerbear V5 operation; provider scopes, locks and credits apply. Read operation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_image_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
accountNoExact private workspace profile label; no fallback to another profile key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so 'Read operation' is redundant. The description does add genuine context beyond them — provider scopes, locks and credit consumption apply — but says nothing about pagination despite the page parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the endpoint, which is efficient. But 'Current Bannerbear V5 operation' is filler and 'Read operation' restates the annotation, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema the description should explain what is returned and how paging works, but it omits both. For a listing endpoint with a pagination parameter, this leaves the agent guessing about result shape and traversal.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does not: neither the pagination parameter nor the account/workspace scoping is explained. 'Provider scopes' only vaguely hints at the account parameter's profile semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The HTTP route GET /v5/image_templates plus the title signal a list operation on image templates, and the sibling set makes list vs get/create/update meaningful. However the description never actually says 'lists templates' or what a template is; it leans on the path string to carry the purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_image_template (single template) or list_animation_templates. 'Current Bannerbear V5 operation' is a version note, not usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools