Skip to main content
Glama
alisaitteke

Photoshop MCP Server

by alisaitteke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

photoshop_recipe_organize_layers

Organize a Photoshop document's layers by renaming them consistently and optionally grouping by kind, without changing visual output or deleting, merging, or rasterizing.

Instructions

Tidy the active document's layer stack: rename layers using a consistent scheme and optionally auto-group them by kind. Never deletes, merges or rasterizes — visual output stays identical.

Use when: the user complains about layer mess ("layer 1 copy 2", "untitled 7") or asks for organization. Do NOT use when: the user wants smart, semantic naming based on layer content beyond text — recipe only summarizes text layers, not image content.

Returns: { ok, summary, details: { renamed_count, group_count } }.

Preconditions: active document. Side effects: renames top-level layers and (optionally) moves them into kind-grouped folders; one undo reverts everything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
auto_groupNoGroup layers by kind (text / image / shape / adjustment). Default true.
document_idYesPhotoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. Send null or 0 to use the active document. A positive number activates that document before the tool runs. When no document is open, a stale id does not block the call.
naming_schemeNoHow to rename layers: type_index (default, e.g. text_01), content_summary (text layers get a slug of their content; other kinds get type_index), preserve (do not rename).type_index

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.33
    • changedInput schema / properties / document_id / description
      Previous value: -"Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. Send null to use the active document. A number activates that document before the tool runs."New value: +"Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. Send null or 0 to use the active document. A positive number activates that document before the tool runs. When no document is open, a stale id does not block the call."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.7.32
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / document_id / description
      Previous value: -"Optional Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. When set, the tool activates that document before running so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit."New value: +"Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. Send null to use the active document. A number activates that document before the tool runs."
    • changedInput schema / properties / document_id / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "document_id"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the precondition (active document), the side effects (renames top-level layers, optionally moves them into kind folders), the reversibility guarantee (one undo reverts everything), and confirms visual output is unchanged — consistent with destructiveHint=false. The only mild tension is idempotentHint=false, but content_summary renaming is not strictly idempotent, so no contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly partitioned into Use when / Do NOT use when / Returns / Preconditions / Side effects. Every line carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating recipe tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ ok, summary, details: { renamed_count, group_count } }), preconditions and side effects. An agent has everything needed to call it and predict its effect.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents auto_group, document_id and the naming_scheme enum with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'rename ... and optionally auto-group them by kind' without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (tidy/rename/group), a precise resource (the active document's layer stack), and scope (top-level layers). The clause 'Never deletes, merges or rasterizes' immediately separates it from sibling operations like photoshop_merge_visible_layers, photoshop_flatten_image and photoshop_rasterize_layer.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit 'Use when' (user complains about messy layer names) and 'Do NOT use when' (user wants semantic naming from image content, which the recipe cannot do) boundaries are given. It never names a concrete alternative sibling to route to, but the selection conditions are otherwise unambiguous.

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