Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ogimage-mcp Generate an OG image with title 'My New Blog Post'"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Generate beautiful OG images directly from Claude Desktop using ogimage.art.
Add to your Claude Desktop config (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"ogimage": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "ogimage-mcp"]
}
}
}npm install -g ogimage-mcpThen add to Claude Desktop config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ogimage": {
"command": "ogimage-mcp"
}
}
}Related MCP server: Draw Things MCP Server
Once installed, you can ask Claude to generate OG images:
"Generate an OG image for my blog post titled 'How to Build a SaaS in 2024'"
"Create a dark-themed OG image with the title 'API Documentation' and subtitle 'Getting Started Guide'"
"List available OG image templates"
Generate an OG image URL.
Parameters:
title (required): Main title text
subtitle: Optional subtitle
author: Optional author name
template: gradient, dark, sunset, ocean, forest, midnight, fire, minimal
size: 1200x630, 1200x675, 800x418
key: License key to remove watermark
List all available templates and sizes.
Generate the HTML meta tag for any URL.
Free tier includes a small watermark. Get a Pro license at ogimage.art to:
Remove watermarks
Access premium templates
Use in commercial projects
Add your license key to remove watermarks:
"Generate an OG image with title 'My Post' using my key ABC123"
Basic:
> Generate an OG image with title "Hello World"With options:
> Create an OG image:
- Title: "Building APIs"
- Subtitle: "A Complete Guide"
- Template: dark
- Author: "John Doe"Website: ogimage.art
Get Pro: ogimage.art/#pricing
npm Package: ogimage-mcp
MIT
Generate an OG image URL for social media previews. Returns a URL you can use in tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Main title text for the image (required) | |
| subtitle | No | Optional subtitle or description | |
| author | No | Optional author name | |
| template | No | Template style: gradient, dark, sunset, ocean, forest, midnight, fire, minimal | |
| size | No | Image dimensions | |
| key | No | License key to remove watermark (optional, get at ogimage.art) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the return of a URL and the optional license key for watermark removal, but does not discuss idempotency, error behavior, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose, second clarifies the output format. Efficiently front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It covers the main purpose and output. However, it lacks details on error cases or potential limitations. Overall complete for a straightforward generative tool.
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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it generates an OG image URL for social media previews, specifying the exact output format (URL for og:image meta tag). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_meta_tag (retrieves tags) and list_templates (lists templates).
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 indicates the tool is for social media previews but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude other contexts. No comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate the HTML meta tag for an OG image URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The OG image URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states it generates a meta tag, but doesn't disclose whether it's a pure read operation, any side effects, permissions, output format, or error handling. Minimal behavioral insight.
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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete by explicitly stating the return type (e.g., a string of HTML). It implies the output but doesn't confirm it.
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 parameter ('url') is already documented as 'The OG image URL'. The description adds context by mentioning 'HTML meta tag' but doesn't enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool generates an HTML meta tag for an OG image URL, which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools (generate_og_image likely creates the image, list_templates lists templates).
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 implies usage when you have an OG image URL and need a meta tag, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer alternatives (e.g., generate_og_image). No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available OG image templates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies a read operation but doesn't elaborate on behavior beyond listing. Adequate for a simple list, but could mention read-only nature.
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?
Single short sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No wasted words.
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?
Sufficient for a simple list tool. Lacks explanation of template usage, but sibling tools provide context. No output schema needed.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param info, but none needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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?
Description clearly states 'List all available OG image templates' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings: 'generate_og_image' creates templates, 'get_meta_tag' retrieves tags.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Implied usage before template generation, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0generate_og_imageget_meta_taglist_templatesEach tool has a distinct purpose: generating an OG image URL, generating the HTML meta tag, and listing templates. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: generate_og_image, get_meta_tag, list_templates.
Three tools cover the core functionality of OG image generation well; the count is appropriate for the narrow scope.
The set covers generation, meta tag output, and template discovery. Missing template management (create/update/delete) but these are not core to the primary use case.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Generate and edit images and create short videos inside Claude. Prepaid credits, no subscription.
Give agents instant OG image generation, social metadata audits, and rendering guidance.
Generate images, GIFs, and PDFs from HTML, URLs, or templates — from your AI agent.
Free Open Graph image generator API. Create beautiful OG images with customizable themes, icons, and colors. No API keys required.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ogimage-art/mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
