Image Format Converter — Convert an image between formats: JPG, PNG, WebP, TIFF, BMP, GIF, AVIF. [category: photo]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Input format is unrestricted — anything ImageMagick reads, incl. HEIC. Max 25 MB. | |
| format | No | 'jpeg' also accepted (saved as .jpg). EXIF rotation is baked into the pixels — most target formats can't carry the tag. | png |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the operation is not read-only and not destructive, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no further behavioral detail such as whether a new file is produced, how output is returned, or side effects; the EXIF-rotation note appears only in the schema, not the description.
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?
The description is one short sentence with a category tag, and the core verb and resource are front-loaded. The opening phrase 'Image Format Converter' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall size is appropriate.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with complete schema documentation, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. The lack of output specification is mitigated by the self-explanatory 'convert between formats' behavior and the absence of complex state or nested inputs.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including accepted aliases and input restrictions. The format list in the description largely duplicates the enum without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 names a specific action ('convert') on a specific resource ('image') and enumerates seven supported formats, which clearly distinguishes it from generic converters like convert_file and from photo editing tools. The purpose is immediately obvious and not a tautology.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_file or photo_editor. It relies on the agent to infer usage from the format list, and there are no exclusions or routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
