Inspect a GIMP PDB procedure by name to see its arguments and return values before calling it.
Muestra los argumentos y valores de retorno de un procedimiento PDB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact, that it returns both argument and return-value details, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior for unknown procedure names.
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 no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is short rather than padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 one-parameter introspection lookup with rich annotations but no output schema, the description conveys the returned content adequately. It still omits the name format and any routing versus gimp_pdb_search/gimp_pdb_call, and it is written in Spanish while every sibling is English, which is a mismatch an agent must reconcile.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the required 'name' parameter. It never states whether the name should be a fully-qualified PDB procedure identifier (e.g. 'plug-in-foo') or a display name, so the agent must guess the format.
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?
States a specific verb ('Muestra') and resource ('argumentos y valores de retorno de un procedimiento PDB'), so an agent can tell it introspects a procedure rather than calling or searching one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gimp_pdb_search, gimp_pdb_call, or gimp_filter_info, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The obvious use case (inspect a procedure's signature before invoking gimp_pdb_call) is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.