Generate a PNG preview of the current image or a single layer so you can visually verify that edits look correct.
Devuelve una vista previa PNG de la imagen (o de una sola capa) para VER el resultado.
Úsala tras cada cambio importante para comprobar que ha quedado bien.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | No | ||
| layer_id | No | ||
| max_size | 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is a PNG and that a single layer can be targeted, but says nothing about how the preview is delivered or what max_size does. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first states the output, the second gives the trigger. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape — file path, base64, or inline image content — since an agent cannot act on a PNG preview without knowing how it arrives. Combined with 0% schema description coverage on max_size, the definition is under-specified for a 3-parameter tool.
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%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies the image-vs-layer distinction implied by image_id/layer_id, but leaves max_size (default 1024, a meaningful control over preview resolution) completely unexplained. Two of three parameters get only indirect coverage.
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 and resource: returns a PNG preview of the image, or of a single layer. This is clearly distinguishable from metadata-only siblings like gimp_image_info, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives clear timing guidance: 'use it after every important change to check it came out well', which tells the agent when to reach for this tool in an editing workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives (e.g., versus gimp_image_info), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.