Create an editable text layer in GIMP at specified pixel coordinates to add text to images programmatically. Color accepts CSS/Gegl syntax.
Create an editable GIMP text layer at pixel position x/y. Optional color accepts CSS/Gegl syntax.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| size | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| font_name | No | Sans | |
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / colorAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Color"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the layer is 'editable' and that color uses CSS/Gegl syntax, but it omits key mutation details such as required session context, side effects on the document, permissions, or default behavior for size and font.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. The optional color syntax note is appended efficiently.
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?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is still too thin. It does not explain session_id, text, size, font_name, or the mutation's effect on the active document, leaving significant gaps for a creation 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for x/y ('pixel position') and color syntax, but leaves text, session_id, size, and font_name undocumented beyond their bare schema titles.
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 names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('editable GIMP text layer'), with a clear scoping detail ('at pixel position x/y'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as text_update (update vs create) and layer_create/shape_create (text layer vs generic layer or shape).
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 states what it creates but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like text_update, layer_create, or shape_create. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.