krita-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_image_from_url

Download a public image URL and place it on a new Krita layer using specified position, size, fit, and name.

Instructions

Download a PUBLIC http(s) image URL (no redirects, max 25 MB, private addresses blocked) and place it on a new layer. Same placement options as import_image.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "import_image_from_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`x`	No
`y`	No
`fit`	No
`url`	Yes
`name`	No	Imported image
`width`	No
`height`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does it well: it discloses network constraints (no redirects, 25 MB cap, private-address blocking) and the side effect of creating a new layer. It does not say what happens on failure, timeout, or unsupported content types, and doesn't state that this is a network operation with latency.

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 tight sentences with the source-type constraint front-loaded and limits in a compact parenthetical. No filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter, zero-coverage, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the risky part (fetching from a URL) thoroughly but delegates six placement/name parameters to a sibling reference. Adequate but not self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'url' semantics well, and 'Same placement options as import_image' gives indirect meaning to x/y/fit/width/height, but that requires consulting another tool, and 'name' (default 'Imported image') is never addressed.

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 and resource ('Download a PUBLIC http(s) image URL and place it on a new layer') and implicitly separates itself from the file-based sibling via 'Same placement options as import_image.' An agent can tell this is the remote-source variant without opening either schema.

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?

'PUBLIC http(s)' and 'private addresses blocked' effectively exclude internal/local targets and point to import_image for local files. However, the routing to import_image is only implied by the placement-options reference rather than stated as 'use import_image for local files.'

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

Deploy Server