inspect_imageReads width, height, format, file size, orientation, transparency and dominant colors from a public image URL so you can verify and analyze any image.
Reports the width, height, format, file size, orientation, transparency and dominant colours of an image at a public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public URL of the image to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating exactly which attributes are reported (dimensions, format, size, orientation, transparency, dominant colours), telling the agent what it will receive without an output schema. It doesn't cover failure modes such as unreachable or non-image URLs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every listed attribute earns its place. Nothing is redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields, and the read-only annotation covers the safety dimension. It would be complete with a note on error behavior for invalid or non-public URLs, but as a simple one-parameter read tool it is nearly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, so the schema already documents it fully, and the description adds only the qualifier 'public'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Reports') on a specific resource ('an image at a public URL') and enumerates the exact attributes returned, so an agent knows immediately this is a metadata-inspection tool rather than a transformation tool. It never names the closest sibling, convert_image, so it falls short of 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to convert_image or capture_screenshot, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the URL being public. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.