gimp-agent-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gimp_image_info

Retrieve a full image structure including layer tree, item IDs, channels, paths, selection bounds, and resolution for inspection or automated processing.

Instructions

Full structure of one image: layer tree with item ids, channels, paths, selection bounds, resolution.

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": {
      "image_id": "<image_id>"
    },
    "name": "gimp_image_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`image_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well by itemizing exactly what will be returned: layer tree, channels, paths, selection bounds, and resolution. This makes the read-only nature of the tool evident, though it omits prerequisites such as needing a valid open image.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence that uses a colon-separated list to convey the full scope of the tool efficiently. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential return categories and makes the tool's purpose clear. It could have mentioned that the image must already be open or obtainable via gimp_list_images, but that is a minor gap and inferable from the sibling tools.

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?

The single parameter image_id is not explained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The phrase 'one image' weakly implies that image_id selects a single image, and the parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the target resource (a single image) and enumerates the returned contents, which distinguishes it from siblings like gimp_list_images. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', but 'full structure' clearly implies inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies that this tool is for inspecting one image's full structure, which gives the agent some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as gimp_list_images or gimp_measure, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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