Retrieve all layer definitions and the active layer index from an open LightBurn project, optionally filtering to layers that contain shapes.
Requires capability "project". All 32 layer definitions (index, name, color as #RRGGBB, type, hidden, in_use, shape_count) and the active layer index. By default only layers in use are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| in_use_only | No | Return only layers that have shapes (default true). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the capability gate, the complete return field set, and the default filter ('by default only layers in use are returned'). It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only with no side effects, which is the remaining gap.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler, and the capability gate is front-loaded. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema.
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?
Because no output schema exists, the description must describe returns — and it does, listing all fields and the active layer index, plus the known count of 32. Only minor things like layer ordering or absence of side effects are 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only corroborates the default and hints that disabling it yields all 32 layers; it adds little new 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 names the resource precisely (layer definitions plus the active layer index) and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows this is the layer-read tool rather than a position/units/settings getter. The verb is only implied by the tool name, but the resource is unambiguous among siblings.
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?
It states a prerequisite ('Requires capability "project"') and explains the default filtering, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not reference any alternative among the get_* siblings. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.