photopea_ungroup_layersUngroup a layer group by moving all its child layers to the document root, removing the group folder while preserving contents.
Dissolve a layer group, moving all child layers to the document root. The group folder is removed but its contents are preserved. Use get_layers to find group names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Name of the layer group to ungroup (use get_layers to find group names) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / target / descriptionPrevious value: -"Name of the layer group to ungroup"New value: +"Name of the layer group to ungroup (use get_layers to find group names)"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds detail beyond annotations: it states the group folder is removed but contents are preserved. Annotations show destructiveHint=false, which aligns with 'contents preserved'. No contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded: the action and its effect.
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?
For a simple one-parameter operation, the description covers purpose, effect, and prerequisite (use get_layers). No output schema, but results are straightforward. Could mention undo capability, but not essential.
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?
The input schema fully describes the single required parameter 'target' with a clear description. The tool description adds no new param details beyond referencing 'get_layers', but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Dissolve') and clearly states the resource ('layer group') and its effect ('moving all child layers to the document root'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'group_layers' and 'delete_layer'.
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?
It explicitly states the use case (dissolving a group) and recommends using 'get_layers' to find group names. While it doesn't mention when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives, the context is clear for a simple operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.