Skip to main content
Glama

penpot_tree_schema

Retrieve the JSON schema for Penpot design object trees to enable AI analysis and interaction with design files programmatically.

Instructions

Provide the Penpot object tree schema as JSON.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'penpot_tree_schema' tool. It loads the Penpot tree schema from the resources directory and returns it as a JSON dictionary. This is the core implementation executing the tool logic.
    @self.mcp.tool()
    def penpot_tree_schema() -> dict:
        """Provide the Penpot object tree schema as JSON."""
        schema_path = os.path.join(config.RESOURCES_PATH, 'penpot-tree-schema.json')
        try:
            with open(schema_path, 'r') as f:
                return json.load(f)
        except Exception as e:
            return {"error": f"Failed to load tree schema: {str(e)}"}
  • Conditional registration of resource tools including 'penpot_tree_schema' when config.RESOURCES_AS_TOOLS is True.
    self._register_tools(include_resource_tools=True)
  • Similar handler registered as an MCP resource at 'penpot://tree-schema', providing the same schema loading logic.
    @self.mcp.resource("penpot://tree-schema", mime_type="application/schema+json")
    def penpot_tree_schema() -> dict:
        """Provide the Penpot object tree schema as JSON."""
        schema_path = os.path.join(config.RESOURCES_PATH, 'penpot-tree-schema.json')
        try:
            with open(schema_path, 'r') as f:
                return json.load(f)
        except Exception as e:
            return {"error": f"Failed to load tree schema: {str(e)}"}
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but omits behavioral context and usage guidelines relative to siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making in a server with multiple related tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter semantics in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Provide') and resource ('Penpot object tree schema as JSON'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'penpot_schema' or 'get_object_tree', which likely serve related but different purposes, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'penpot_schema' and 'get_object_tree' available, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/montevive/penpot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server