Export the current GIMP artwork as an editable XCF project, PNG, or JPEG to a chosen output path, with optional format and overwrite settings.
Export the current artwork as an editable XCF project, PNG, or JPEG.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | png | |
| overwrite | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about overwrite semantics, whether the source artwork is modified, whether the exported XCF flattens layers, or what permissions/state the session must be in — all material for a write-to-disk operation with an overwrite flag.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format list is the useful payload. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasted.
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 not be described, but for a four-parameter file-export tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits overwrite behavior, path requirements, and session prerequisites — the agent lacks enough to call it confidently against the alternatives.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only echoes the format options. The required session_id and output_path and the overwrite boolean are left completely unexplained, including path resolution rules and what overwrite=false does when the file exists.
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?
States a specific verb (export) and resource (current artwork) plus the three output formats, which maps exactly to the format enum. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling export_image, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which export tool to pick.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., an active session), and no routing against the near-synonymous sibling export_image or publish_artwork_downloads. The agent must infer selection from name similarity alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.