Check the connection to GIMP, start it if needed, and list all open images so you can confirm the editor is ready before running further tasks.
Comprueba la conexión con GIMP (lo arranca si hace falta) y lista las imágenes abiertas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover safety hints (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the call will launch GIMP if it is not running, which implies a potentially slow first invocation and a process-level side effect on the host. That side effect sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, though it does not modify user data.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler — the connection check (the primary diagnostic purpose) comes before the listing detail. Nothing to trim.
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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description says what it returns (open images) and discloses the auto-start behavior. An agent has everything it needs to call it correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.
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 concrete compound action: verifies the GIMP connection and lists open images. Clear verb+resource, but it overlaps with the sibling gimp_list_images for the 'list images' half and never explains how the two differ.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: 'comprueba la conexión' signals this is a diagnostic/health-check call, likely first in a workflow. No explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of gimp_list_images as an alternative for enumerating images.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.