Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gimp-mcp

gimp-mcp

by abelduarte
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gimp.set_layer_properties

Update a layer's name, visibility, opacity, or blend mode in GIMP. Modify layer properties to control appearance and compositing.

Instructions

Update a layer's name, visibility, opacity, or blend mode.

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": {
      "layer_id": "<layer_id>"
    },
    "name": "gimp.set_layer_properties"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layer_idYes
nameNo
visibleNo
opacityNo
modeNoGIMP LayerMode enum name, e.g. NORMAL, MULTIPLY, SCREEN.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Update'). It omits behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., immediate image update), error conditions (invalid layer_id), or required state (image must be open).

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the verb. No redundant or superfluous information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 5 parameters, one required, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not mention that layer_id is required, nor does it explain the expected format for 'mode' beyond the enum example. The tool's completeness is insufficient for reliable use.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'mode' has a description). The description lists the properties but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides (types, ranges). For example, it does not explain that opacity is a percentage or that visible affects the layer's visibility toggle.

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's purpose: updating layer properties (name, visibility, opacity, blend mode). It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('layer's properties'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_text or draw_polyline.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it). An agent would need to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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