Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gimp-mcp

gimp-mcp

by abelduarte
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gimp.draw_polyline

Draw a pixel polyline on a GIMP drawable by providing an array of point coordinates, with options for color and brush size.

Instructions

Draw a deterministic pixel polyline on a drawable.

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": {
      "drawable_id": "<drawable_id>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "gimp.draw_polyline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
drawable_idYes
pointsYes
colorNoCSS color string, [r,g,b], [r,g,b,a], or {r,g,b,a}.
brush_sizeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions 'deterministic pixel polyline', hinting at pixel-level output and determinism. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, performance, or other behavioral traits beyond this minimal clue.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with one short sentence, but it is not front-loaded with key details. It could be restructured to include more critical information without sacrificing brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain drawable_id, points format, color handling, or brush_size effects, leaving the agent with many unknowns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no information about the parameters. Schema coverage is low (25% only on 'color'), and the description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as the structure of 'points' or the effect of 'brush_size'.

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 clearly states the tool draws a polyline on a drawable, using the verb 'Draw' and specifying 'pixel polyline'. It is distinct from siblings like fill operations, but could further differentiate by mentioning it connects lines between points.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for using draw_polyline compared to other drawing or procedural tools.

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