Free Photoshop MCP

Estilos guardados

ps_style_list

Retrieve all saved Photoshop styles and identify the currently active one so you can audit or switch styling presets before applying them to a design.

Instructions

Lista los estilos guardados y cuál está activo.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ps_style_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 states that it lists saved styles and reports the active one, but says nothing about return format, ordering, whether it is a safe read, or how it behaves when no styles are saved. For a no-annotation tool this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource and the active-style detail and stops, which is exactly right for a zero-argument list operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Low complexity and zero parameters make a short description reasonable, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no return-format or ordering detail, an agent still cannot predict the shape of what comes back. It is minimally complete rather than fully so.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case under the rubric. The description accurately implies no input is required, and there is nothing further for the description to add.

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?

States a specific verb (Lista) and resource (estilos guardados), plus an added detail: which style is active. This distinguishes it from neighbors like ps_style_get, ps_style_set, ps_capture_style, and ps_style_analyze, which operate on individual styles rather than enumerating the saved list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the read-list use case (enumerating saved styles and the active one), but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as ps_style_get or ps_style_analyze. Adequate but with a clear routing gap for an agent choosing among the style tools.

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