Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
krita-mcp

krita-mcp

by jowinjohnchemban
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

document_new

Creates a new RGBA 8-bit sRGB document with a chosen size, resolution, and background color or transparency, then makes it the active document.

Instructions

Create a new RGBA 8-bit sRGB document and make it active. background: colour or 'transparent'.

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": "document_new"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoUntitled
widthNo
heightNo
backgroundNowhite
resolution_ppiNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it fixes the color model, bit depth and colorspace (RGBA 8-bit sRGB, none of which are parameters) and discloses the side effect that the new document becomes active. It does not say what is returned (document id/info), whether creation can fail, or how the document is named on disk.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format constraints, then the one parameter nuance. No filler, nothing redundant.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a create tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is thin: an agent still cannot tell what the call returns, the units for width/height, or what happens to the previously active document. Only the color-model and background semantics are filled in.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only clarifies one: background accepts a colour or 'transparent'. Name, width, height and resolution_ppi are left without units (pixels? PPI semantics) or bounds, despite having silent defaults.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new ... document and make it active") and pins down the document format as RGBA 8-bit sRGB. The verb "new" implicitly separates it from document_open and document_activate, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 use this versus document_open (open existing file) or import_image, and no stated prerequisites or restrictions (e.g. whether it's valid with no active workspace). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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