Skip to main content
Glama
alisaitteke

Photoshop MCP Server

by alisaitteke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

photoshop_rename_layer

Idempotent

Rename the active Photoshop layer to give it a stable name for later selection by name, without changing pixels, order, or visibility.

Instructions

Rename the active layer. Does not change pixels, order, or visibility.

Use when: the active layer needs a stable name for a later photoshop_select_layer_by_name. Do NOT use when: many layers should be renamed by kind — use photoshop_recipe_organize_layers. Do NOT use when: a different layer is the target — use photoshop_select_layer_by_name first.

Returns: the new layer name. Preconditions: active document and active layer. Side effects: the name only. Setting the same name is idempotent. Reversible with photoshop_undo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew name for the layer
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.

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"
+]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "document_id"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds substantial beyond-schema context: explicit non-effects on pixels/order/visibility, preconditions (active document + active layer), side effects scoped to the name only, idempotency on identical names, and reversibility via photoshop_undo.

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 organized under terse labeled clauses ('Use when', 'Do NOT use when', 'Returns', 'Preconditions', 'Side effects'). Every sentence carries distinct information 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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return value, preconditions, side effects, idempotency, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both params (name, document_id) are already documented in detail, including the null/0 active-document behavior. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rename the active layer') and immediately bounds the scope by clarifying it does not change pixels, order, or visibility. The 'active layer' qualifier distinguishes it from generic layer mutation tools in the large sibling set.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use when' and two 'Do NOT use when' clauses, each naming the alternative tool (photoshop_recipe_organize_layers for bulk renaming, photoshop_select_layer_by_name when the wrong layer is active). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure that scores top marks.

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