Allows uploading images to a GitHub repository configured as a PicGo image bed, with support for custom remote paths and generated CDN URLs.
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., "@picgo-mcp upload the image at /tmp/screenshot.png"
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.
Quick start: Send the following prompt to your Coding Agent:
请从 https://github.com/timerring/PicGo-MCP 安装并配置 PicGo MCP Server。
An MCP stdio server that embeds PicGo Core directly into the process. It lets MCP clients such as Codex and Claude Desktop reuse existing PicGo image hosting configurations, without requiring the PicGo desktop app to run and without going through 127.0.0.1:36677.
Directly invokes PicGo Core 3, with no desktop app dependency.
Supports local files, file:// URLs, and HTTP(S) image URLs.
Supports single image uploads and batch uploads of up to 20 images.
Automatically discovers PicGo Desktop, PicGo Core, and CLI configurations.
Supports custom uploaded file names and return formats.
Concurrent calls are automatically queued to prevent PicGo's mutable upload state from interfering with each other.
Status tools do not return config values such as tokens or secrets, and display the user's home directory as ~.
Related MCP server: flin-imgbb-mcp
Node.js >=20.19.0
A working PicGo configuration file
Install from source:
npm install
npm run build
npm install -g .Verify the command is available:
picgo-mcp --helpcodex mcp add picgo -- picgo-mcp
codex mcp get picgoAfter adding the new MCP server, start a new task or refresh the client so the tool list reloads.
After a global install, the following stdio configuration can be used:
{
"mcpServers": {
"picgo": {
"command": "picgo-mcp"
}
}
}When the config file needs to be explicitly specified:
{
"mcpServers": {
"picgo": {
"command": "picgo-mcp",
"args": ["--config", "/path/to/picgo/config.json"]
}
}
}You can also set the environment variable PICGO_CONFIG_PATH. --config takes precedence over the environment variable and automatic discovery.
The following locations are searched in order:
macOS：~/Library/Application Support/picgo/data.json
Windows：%APPDATA%/picgo/data.json
Linux：$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/picgo/data.json or ~/.config/picgo/data.json
All platforms: ~/.picgo/config.json
The following example uploads images to the repository's images/ directory and returns CDN URLs via jsDelivr:
{
"picBed": {
"uploader": "github",
"current": "github",
"github": {
"repo": "OWNER/REPOSITORY",
"branch": "main",
"path": "images/",
"customUrl": "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/OWNER/REPOSITORY@main",
"token": "YOUR_GITHUB_TOKEN"
}
},
"picgoPlugins": {},
"settings": {
"picgoMcp": {
"uploadNameTemplate": "${dateTime}-${fileName}${extName}",
"outputFormat": "${url}"
}
}
}The GitHub token needs write access to the target repository. Do not commit real tokens to Git, issues, logs, or chat history, and restrict the config file permissions to be readable only by the current user:
chmod 600 ~/.picgo/config.jsonWhen PicGo Core 3 reads a legacy config for the first time, it may fill in an uploader config and internal metadata; this is normal automatic migration behavior.
Configuration location:
{
"settings": {
"picgoMcp": {
"uploadNameTemplate": "${dateTime}-${fileName}${extName}"
}
}
}Supported variables:
Variable | Example | Description |
|
| Local date |
|
| Local time accurate to the second |
|
| Original file name, without extension |
|
| Original extension |
|
| Zero-based index for batch uploads; empty for single image uploads |
Recommended:
${dateTime}-${fileName}${extName}Using only ${dateTime}${extName} can cause name collisions for images uploaded within the same second. Templates only perform whitelist placeholder replacement, do not execute JavaScript, and do not allow extra paths such as ../ to be written through the file name; remote directories should be set using the uploader's path config.
Configuration location:
{
"settings": {
"picgoMcp": {
"outputFormat": "${url}"
}
}
}Supported variables:
${url}: the URL of the uploaded image.
${uploadedName}: the uploaded file name, without extension.
Common formats:
${url}
Tool responses always include image info, a URL array, Markdown, and a formattedOutput generated from the template, so callers can choose the fields they need.
upload_imageUpload a local or remote image:
{
"source": "/path/to/image.png"
}upload_imagesBatch upload 1–20 images:
{
"sources": [
"/path/to/first.png",
"https://example.com/second.jpg"
]
}get_picgo_statusReturns whether a config exists, the PicGo version, the current uploader, configured field names, and available uploaders. This tool does not return config values or image-hosting credentials.
{
"images": [
{
"url": "https://cdn.example.com/images/2026-08-23-17-34-47-example.png",
"fileName": "2026-08-23-17-34-47-example.png",
"width": 800,
"height": 600,
"size": 123456
}
],
"urls": [
"https://cdn.example.com/images/2026-08-23-17-34-47-example.png"
],
"markdown": "",
"formattedOutput": "https://cdn.example.com/images/2026-08-23-17-34-47-example.png"
}MCP clients typically start a picgo-mcp stdio process and reuse it for the duration of the client session. Images are read and image source/hosting services are only accessed when an upload tool is called; once the client closes the connection, the server process exits and releases memory.
PicGo holds mutable input and output state on the instance, so this project serializes concurrent upload requests.
Do not pass tokens in command arguments; credentials should be managed by the PicGo config.
MCP tools do not return image-hosting credentials; status tools only return field names.
Home directory paths are replaced with ~ in tool responses.
HTTP(S) images are first downloaded by PicGo, then uploaded to the configured image-hosting service.
PicGo loads plugins according to its config; only install and enable trusted plugins.
Do not expose the stdio server to untrusted clients.
npm install
npm test
npm run check
npm run buildTesting currently covers config discovery, MCP tool registration, status redaction, upload input validation, naming templates, output templates, and privacy checks for hosted files.
Show the selected config path, PicGo version, active uploader, configured field names, and available uploaders. Secret values are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explicitly noting that secret values are never returned, which informs the agent about a meaningful privacy guarantee beyond the annotations.
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 primary output items, and ends with an important caveat about secrets. Every part contributes value with no repetition or filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to understand its behavior and call it correctly. No missing information is significant.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema already fully communicates invocation requirements. The description has nothing to add about parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 begins with 'Show' and names a concrete set of outputs (config path, version, active uploader, field names, available uploaders). It clearly distinguishes this inspection tool from the sibling upload tools by framing it as read-only status retrieval.
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 this tool is for inspecting current PicGo configuration state rather than performing uploads. It does not explicitly state 'use this before uploading' or name alternatives, but the read-only nature and content list make the intended context clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upload one local image file or HTTP(S) image URL using the active PicGo uploader.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Local file path, file:// URL, or HTTP(S) image URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description offers one extra context point: it depends on the 'active' PicGo uploader, implying configuration prerequisites. It does not explain side effects, failures, or response behavior, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden.
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 short, direct sentence captures the entire behavior with the key constraint 'one' placed up front. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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 the tool has one well-documented parameter and annotations cover mutability, idempotency, and safety, the description is nearly complete for a simple upload call. It could optionally mention what happens upon success or failure, but that is likely redundant for such a niche tool. The 'active PicGo uploader' hints at a real precondition that could be missing.
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% since the single parameter 'source' is fully documented as a local file path, file:// URL, or HTTP(S) image URL. The description mostly echoes the same semantics without adding format validations, constraints, or examples. Essentially the full burden is handled by 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Upload one local image file or HTTP(S) image URL using the active PicGo uploader.' The word 'one' clearly distinguishes it from the plural sibling tool upload_images. The title reinforces purpose without ambiguity.
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 singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the plural upload_images sibling, giving a subtle cue. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool vs upload_images or get_picgo_status, nor any exclusion conditions. Guidance is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upload up to 20 local image files or HTTP(S) image URLs in one PicGo batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | Local file paths, file:// URLs, or HTTP(S) image URLs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds that the operation is a batched upload accepting files or URLs, but it does not disclose side effects such as duplicate uploads on repeated calls or how partial failures are handled. This is modest added context beyond annotations, 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?
A single sentence captures the action, accepted inputs, count limit, and batching model. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
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 one-parameter tool, the definition is sufficient to understand what to pass and why this tool is relevant. The only meaningful gaps are the absence of an explicit mention of the singular sibling and no description of return values or error behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, and the description mostly restates the schema's own information: local paths, file:// URLs, HTTP(S) URLs, and the 20-item limit. It confirms the parameter's meaning but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific action verb and resource: uploading local image files or HTTP(S) image URLs. It also specifies the batch boundary of up to 20, which clearly differentiates this tool from the singular sibling upload_image.
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 phrase 'in one PicGo batch' plus 'up to 20' clearly establishes this is the tool for multiple-image uploads. It does not explicitly name upload_image for the single-image case or explain when to use get_picgo_status, but the usage context is strongly implied.
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.
v0.1.0get_picgo_statusupload_imageupload_imagesupload_image and upload_images are clearly differentiated as singular vs. batch operations, and get_picgo_status serves a distinct diagnostic purpose. No tools overlap in a way that would cause selection confusion.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: upload_image, upload_images, get_picgo_status. The naming is predictable and consistent across the set.
Three tools is on the smaller side but well-suited for a focused image-upload server. Each tool provides a distinct needed capability: single upload, batch upload, and status/configuration inspection.
The server covers the core upload lifecycle well, including single and batch uploads plus status/uploader information. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit uploader-selection or configuration tool, but the active uploader is readable via status, so agents can work around it.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Convert images to PNG, JPEG, WebP, or AVIF through one public remote MCP tool.
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
Browse, search, upload, tag, transfer, and delete images in your Raster libraries over MCP.
AI-powered image processing via GPU. Remove backgrounds and upscale images (2x/4x) directly from any MCP client. OAuth 2.1 authenticated, returns processed images inline with download links. Free credits on signup at maskr.io.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/timerring/PicGo-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
