Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
krita6-mcp

krita6-mcp

by fanzhuyifan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

krita_activate_document

DestructiveIdempotent

Activate an existing document view to make it the active canvas, so native painting targets that document. Use the same operation_id on retries.

Instructions

Activate an existing view of the explicit document so native painting can target it. Changes the user's active canvas. Reuse operation_id on retries.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "instance_id": "<instance_id>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "krita_activate_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idYes
instance_idYes
operation_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that the operation changes the user's active canvas, which goes beyond annotations, and 'Reuse operation_id on retries' adds idempotent retry behavior consistent with idempotentHint=true. It does not detail destructive side effects, but destructiveHint=true is already in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and active-canvas effect. No filler or repeated schema info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple state-changing activation tool, the description covers purpose, side effect, and retry behavior. It lacks return or error behavior, but no output schema exists and sibling tools provide surrounding context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning. It clarifies operation_id as a retry token and document_id as the explicit document, but leaves instance_id implicit and gives no guidance on how to obtain these IDs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly identifies the tool's job: activating an existing document view so native painting can target it. It names a specific verb and resource, and differentiates itself from sibling list/inspect/open/create tools by emphasizing 'existing view' and 'active canvas'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the context of use: before native painting, to switch the active canvas. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'so native painting can target it' gives clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools