Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unity MCP Claude Code

Unity MCP Claude Code

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

krita_export

Convert .kra, .psd, or .tiff files to PNG or JPG via Krita's engine. Specify input and output file paths.

Instructions

Konvertiert eine .kra/.psd/.tiff … in PNG/JPG (Endung von out_path) via Krita.

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": {
      "kra_path": "<kra_path>",
      "out_path": "<out_path>"
    },
    "name": "krita_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kra_pathYes
out_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate it's not read-only but not destructive. The description adds 'via Krita' which implies reliance on an external application, but does not disclose side effects like whether Krita needs to be running or if files are overwritten.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with annotations present, the description covers the essential transformation logic and output format determination. Could mention if Krita must be closed or if the operation is synchronous, but overall sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that out_path's extension sets the output format, but does not describe kra_path beyond implication as source file. Both parameters would benefit from more explicit semantics.

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 the tool converts specific file formats (.kra/.psd/.tiff) to PNG/JPG via Krita, with the output format determined by the file extension in out_path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_open.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., Krita installation), or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools