Retrieve metadata from the active Photoshop document, including dimensions, color mode, layer count, and active layer. Use it to inspect document properties before editing.
Get metadata about the currently active Photoshop document (dimensions, color mode, layers count, active layer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the tool acts on the active document and requires no arguments, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g., no document open) or permission/auth needs for a read against a live Photoshop instance.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list in a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-parameter signature is fully covered by the single sentence. The only gap is the read-only/error semantics left unstated, which is minor for such a simple inspection tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is no schema surface to compensate for; baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming the categories of metadata returned, which is beyond what an empty schema conveys.
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?
Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata about the currently active Photoshop document) and enumerates the returned fields (dimensions, color mode, layer count, active layer). It implicitly separates itself from photoshop_list_documents by scoping to the 'currently active' document, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied – an agent infers it should call this when it needs document state before acting. There is no explicit 'use this before X' guidance and no distinction from photoshop_list_documents or photoshop_get_layers, both of which overlap in the metadata space.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.