Vizcom MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

vizcom_import_image

Imports local PNG, JPEG, or WebP images into a Vizcom board, normalizes EXIF rotation, and uploads a PNG copy without modifying the source file.

Instructions

Import local PNG, JPEG or WebP into a board. Normalizes EXIF rotation and uploads PNG, leaving the source file unchanged.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "workbenchId": "<workbenchId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "vizcom_import_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`file`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`workbenchId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that EXIF rotation is normalized, the uploaded format becomes PNG, and the source file is left unchanged. This adds useful behavioral context, although it does not explain duplicate handling or board-side side effects beyond the annotation's non-idempotent hint.

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 concise sentences with no wasted wording, and the core import behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to include.

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?

The tool has five required parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description covers the file behavior but leaves the roles of x, y, name, and workbenchId completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for invocation correctness.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the file parameter accepts local PNG, JPEG or WebP, but it does not explain the required x, y, name, or workbenchId 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 states a specific verb and resource: import local PNG, JPEG or WebP images into a board. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like vizcom_upload_sketch, which may also upload visual assets.

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 when to use it by naming the supported image formats and the target board, but it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. It does not mention vizcom_upload_sketch or explain when importing an image is preferable to uploading a sketch.

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