Creates a new isolated artwork session and XCF working document, returning a session_id required by all GIMP editing tools.
Create a new isolated artwork session and XCF working document. Returns a session_id used by all editing tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| background_name | No | Background | |
| background_color | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / background_colorAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Background Color"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect — returns a session_id consumed by all editing tools — but says nothing about persistence, resource limits, or lifecycle constraints for a creation tool.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return value stated second. 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-value detail is not required, though the description reinforces the session_id contract. For a simple creation tool with all-optional params, this is nearly complete, lacking only parameter meaning and usage context.
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?
Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (width, height, background_name, background_color). Only opaque defaults exist in the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource: 'Create a new isolated artwork session and XCF working document.' The word 'isolated' hints at differentiation from session_open, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the boundary between this and session_open/session_list is left to inference.
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 guidance on when to use this versus session_open or session_list, and no prerequisites or context are given. An agent must infer that this is the entry point for a fresh session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.