graphite-art-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Graphite: move, scale or rotate a layer

graphite_transform_layer

Transform existing Graphite layers in parent coordinates using translation, scaling, rotation, or an SVG matrix; combine with or replace the current transform in one undo step.

Instructions

Apply a transform to an existing layer, in its parent's coordinate space (document pixels for top-level layers). Give translate, scale and/or rotate (applied as scale, then rotate about origin, then translate), or a raw SVG matrix [a, b, c, d, e, f]. By default the transform is combined with the layer's current one; replace=true sets it outright. One undo step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scale`	No	Uniform factor or [sx, sy].
`matrix`	No	Raw affine matrix; overrides translate/scale/rotate.
`origin`	No	Pivot [x, y] for scale and rotate; default [0, 0].
`rotate`	No	Degrees, clockwise (y grows downward).
`replace`	No	true sets the layer's transform to exactly this matrix instead of combining.
`layer_id`	Yes	layer_id as returned by graphite_insert_svg or listed by graphite_get_document.
`translate`	No	[dx, dy] in pixels.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`matrix`	Yes
`replace`	Yes
`layer_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation with no destructive hint. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: transform is combined by default, replace=true overwrites, and it consumes exactly one undo step. The undo-step disclosure is particularly valuable for an agent planning sequences.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences; the coordinate-space scoping is front-loaded and each clause carries distinct information (coordinate space, composition order, matrix alternative, replace semantics, undo cost). No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: coordinate space, argument composition rules, override precedence, and reversibility cost.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the fixed application order (scale, then rotate about origin, then translate) and that matrix overrides the component parameters. That ordering is essential for predicting the result.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (apply transform) and resource (existing layer) and immediately scopes the coordinate space (parent's coordinate space, document pixels for top-level layers). An agent can distinguish this from graphite_set_style and graphite_insert_svg at a glance.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context: applies to an *existing* layer, and the compositional rules (translate/scale/rotate vs raw matrix) tell the agent which input mode to pick. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when NOT to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server