ps_run_script_fileRuns a .jsx or .jsxbin script from disk inside Photoshop, enabling an AI agent to apply custom actions, build designs, or automate document edits.
Ejecuta un script .jsx/.jsxbin del disco dentro de Photoshop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. For a tool that executes arbitrary user-supplied code, it discloses nothing about side effects, error behavior, whether the script can mutate the open document, or any safety/permission constraints.
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. It is efficient, though arguably thin for a code-execution tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should compensate but does not. It omits how the script's result is reported, what context the script runs in, and any error or security expectations.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no description. The phrase 'del disco' does imply the path is a filesystem location to a .jsx/.jsxbin file, which adds a little meaning beyond the bare string type, but format, absolute-vs-relative, and extension expectations remain unstated.
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 (Ejecuta) and resource (script .jsx/.jsxbin del disco) inside Photoshop, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ps_execute_script, leaving the file-vs-inline distinction 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 when-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'del disco' hints that this is for scripts already saved as files, but the description never tells the agent when to pick this over ps_execute_script or ps_run_action, nor what preconditions (file must exist, extension) apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.