Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
imagetosvg-mcp

imagetosvg-mcp

by ujo78
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Optimize SVG

optimize_svg

Clean up and optimize SVG files using SVGO while preserving layer IDs and viewBox. Write the optimized SVG back to the original or a specified output path.

Instructions

Run svgo to clean up an SVG while preserving layer ids and viewBox. Writes back to svg_path (or output_path).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "svg_path": "<svg_path>"
    },
    "name": "optimize_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
svg_pathYes
output_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 discloses that the tool runs svgo, preserves specific attributes, and writes to svg_path or output_path. However, it does not explain potential side effects like metadata stripping or precision reduction.

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 two sentences, 17 words, with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently conveys key behaviors.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. Missing details include what svgo is, what 'clean up' entails, dependencies, and return value. It is minimally viable but has gaps.

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%, but the description adds that svg_path is the input and output_path is optional, with default behavior to overwrite. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but lacks details like file path constraints or error handling.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool runs svgo to optimize an SVG while preserving layer ids and viewBox. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_image_to_svg, edit_svg, import_vector, inspect_svg, and render_svg, which focus on other operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for SVG optimization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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