Combine GIMP layers by merging down, merging all visible layers, or flattening the image to remove transparency.
Combina capas: merge_down (la capa con la de debajo), merge_visible (todas las visibles) o flatten (todo en una capa sin transparencia).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| image_id | No | ||
| layer_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral detail — flatten collapses everything 'sin transparencia' — but never states irreversibility or that source layers are consumed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and the three modes enumerated compactly. No filler or repetition, though it could consolidate the mode semantics more tightly.
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?
For a destructive, multi-mode operation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: the role of image_id/layer_id, what happens to the unselected layers, and any prerequisites are all absent.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the required 'action' enum meaningfully, but image_id and layer_id are never mentioned, and it is not stated which layer merge_down/merge_visible operate on relative to those ids.
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 a specific verb+resource ('Combina capas') and then decomposes the three modes (merge_down, merge_visible, flatten) into concrete outcomes, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from other layer tools like gimp_layer_order or gimp_delete_layer.
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?
The per-mode parentheticals let the agent pick the right action, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus siblings, no preconditions (does it require an open image / active layer?), and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.