Retrieves all images currently open in GIMP, returning each image's ID, name, dimensions, color mode, layer count, file path, and dirty status, plus a total count.
List all images currently open in GIMP.
Returns:
images: list of {index, image_id, name, width, height, color_mode, num_layers, file_path, is_dirty}
count: total number of open images
| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields including is_dirty and file_path. It says nothing about error behavior, whether it can be called with no images open, or any cost/latency considerations.
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?
One sentence of purpose followed by a structured Returns block — front-loaded and easy to scan. The field enumeration is slightly long but earns its place because no output schema exists. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name beyond the opening sentence.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential gap by documenting the return payload field-by-field, including count. What is missing is minimal — no note on ordering of the image list or behavior on an empty session — but an agent has enough 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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on nonexistent inputs.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List all images currently open in GIMP.' An agent can tell this apart from get_image_metadata or list_layers by the 'currently open' framing. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as get_image_metadata for a single image. Usage is only implied by the nature of a listing operation — an agent infers this is a discovery call before acting on an image, but the description never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.