graphite-art-mcp

by ACoci86

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Graphite: rename a layer

graphite_rename_layer

Idempotent

Rename a Graphite layer via MCP by setting the label shown in the Layers panel.

Instructions

Set the name shown for a layer in the Layers panel.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "layer_id": "<layer_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "graphite_rename_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`layer_id`	Yes	layer_id as returned by graphite_insert_svg or listed by graphite_get_document.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`layer_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the change affects the display name in the Layers panel, which hints this is a UI-facing label rather than an SVG id, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility via undo, or side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition of the title. It is efficient, though it could carry one more clause of guidance at no structural cost.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no usage guidance and only partial parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent short on when to invoke it and whether an undo step is expected.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: layer_id is documented in the schema while name relies on minLength/maxLength. The phrase 'the name shown for a layer' adds semantic context that 'name' is a display label, which is genuinely useful, but the description does not restate the length constraints or format expectations.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (the name shown for a layer), which is clear enough to distinguish from delete_layer, transform_layer, and set_style. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., an existing layer_id must come from insert_svg or get_document), and no mention of alternatives such as undo for reverting. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

Deploy Server