gimp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_image

Get an image's displayed dimensions, layer count, and orientation. Useful for validating image specs before editing or batch processing.

Instructions

Report an image's dimensions, layers, and orientation.

Dimensions are reported as DISPLAYED (EXIF orientation applied), which is what a viewer sees -- not necessarily how the pixels are stored.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`backend`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that dimensions are reported in displayed form after EXIF orientation is applied, not as raw stored pixels. This is a meaningful behavioral nuance, though it could also mention that this is a read-only operation.

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 brief, front-loads the main purpose, and includes only the essential EXIF detail. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the core result and a key display nuance. However, it lacks an explanation of the backend parameter and gives no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over related tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no information about the path or backend parameters. The backend parameter is completely unexplained, and the description only implies the image is referenced by path without discussing either parameter.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('an image's dimensions, layers, and orientation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that crop, resize, or process images rather than inspect metadata.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and it does not mention alternatives such as check_image_spec or other inspection-like siblings. The intended context must be inferred from the tool name and description, so there is no explicit usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server