Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
imagetosvg-mcp

imagetosvg-mcp

by ujo78
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Render SVG to PNG

render_svg

Rasterizes an SVG to a PNG image for visual verification. Returns the PNG inline and creates a .preview.png file next to the SVG.

Instructions

Rasterize an SVG to PNG for visual verification. Returns the PNG inline and writes a .preview.png next to the SVG.

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": "render_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
svg_pathYes
widthNo
scaleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided; description discloses side effects: returns PNG inline and writes a .preview.png file. Lacks details on overwriting behavior but sufficient for basic transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy; front-loaded with action and purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple 3-param tool without output schema, covers return format (inline) and side effect (file creation). Could specify output type precisely but adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage; description only mentions svg_path implicitly. Does not explain width and scale parameters, leaving the agent uncertain about their effect.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Rasterize' and resource 'SVG to PNG', with purpose 'visual verification'. Distinct from siblings like convert_image_to_svg (opposite), edit_svg, import_vector, inspect_svg, optimize_svg.

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?

Implies use for visual verification via 'for visual verification', but no explicit when-to-use/exclusions/alternatives. Could be improved with contrast to siblings.

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