Free Photoshop MCP

Leer texto

ps_text_info

Read a Photoshop text layer to retrieve its content, point/paragraph type, rotation, scale, and each text span's actual style.

Instructions

Lee una capa de texto: contenido, tipo (punto/párrafo), rotación, escala y cada tramo con su estilo real.

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": {
      "layer": "<layer>"
    },
    "name": "ps_text_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc`	No	Documento (nombre o índice desde 1). Por defecto el activo.
`layer`	Yes	Capa: nombre, 'Grupo/Capa', id numérico o {id\|name\|path\|index\|nth}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload scope plus the notable detail that run styles are the 'estilo real' (resolved/effective style rather than nominal). However, it says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the layer must be a text layer, or error behavior on non-text layers.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned data. Dense but every clause earns its place, listing distinct return categories.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must sketch the return shape — and it does, enumerating content, type, rotation, scale, and run-level styles. It stops short of explaining the structure of a 'tramo' or how multiple runs are represented, which is the remaining gap for a read tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'doc' and 'layer' fully documented including the accepted forms ({id|name|path|index|nth}). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Lee') and resource ('capa de texto') and enumerates exactly what is returned: content, type (point/paragraph), rotation, scale, and per-run styling. This clearly separates it from write-side siblings like ps_add_text and ps_edit_text, though it never names the closest read sibling, ps_layer_info.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ps_layer_info, ps_layer_style, or ps_style_analyze, and no stated prerequisites. The read-only intent is only inferred from the verb 'Lee'.

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