Photopea MCP Server

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

The description explicitly characterizes the operation as 'destructive' and states it 'modifies pixels directly,' which directly contradicts the annotation 'destructiveHint: false'. This creates dangerous ambiguity about whether the operation is reversible or permanently destructive.

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

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

The description consists of three efficient, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the first defines the action, the second states the prerequisite, and the third discloses the destructive nature and recovery option. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

Given the 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the prerequisite workflow, the destructive nature of the operation, and the recovery mechanism (undo). The annotation contradiction slightly undermines completeness by creating uncertainty about actual behavior.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the input parameters (type and settings) are fully documented in the schema itself, including specific key-value examples for each filter type. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool applies a 'destructive filter effect' to the 'active layer's pixel data,' providing a clear verb (apply), resource (filter effect), and target (pixel data). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like photopea_apply_adjustment (likely non-destructive) and photopea_select_layer (prerequisite).

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

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

The description provides explicit workflow guidance by naming the prerequisite tool 'select_layer' to target specific layers. It also advises using 'undo to revert,' giving recovery guidance. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with photopea_apply_adjustment for when non-destructive editing is preferred.

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