view_imageFetch a workspace image as MCP image content for review or analysis, with auto-resize and size bounds.
Return a workspace image as MCP image content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| max_width | No | ||
| max_height | No | ||
| auto_resize | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| bytes | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| resized | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| mime_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by stating the return type is MCP image content, but it does not disclose resizing behavior, size limits, or what happens when an image exceeds max_bytes. Given the strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is stated immediately.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with four optional parameters that control resizing and size limits, the description omits all parameter behavior and gives no usage guidance, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 0% for 5 parameters, and the description does not mention any parameter by name or explain max_bytes, max_width, max_height, or auto_resize. The only implied semantics come from the phrase 'workspace image,' which minimally contextualizes path but leaves the four optional constraints completely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (Return) and resource (workspace image) and names the output format (MCP image content), which distinguishes it from text-returning siblings like read_file. It does not explicitly name or rule out alternatives, so a perfect 5 is not warranted.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus read_file or other siblings, nor does it mention any preconditions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'image'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.