Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
krita-mcp

krita-mcp

by jowinjohnchemban
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

krita_status

Retrieve Krita version, sandboxed workspace folder, and open document details (index, size, active) to verify the editing context before an agent makes changes.

Instructions

Krita version, the sandboxed workspace folder, and the open documents (index, size, active).

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": "krita_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 returned content (version, workspace folder, per-document index/size/active). However, it never states that the call is read-only and side-effect free, and since no output schema exists, the return structure is only loosely implied by a parenthetical.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the three main return elements are front-loaded. The parenthetical field list is terse but readable.

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 zero-parameter status tool the description is mostly sufficient, listing the three categories of data returned. Because there is no output schema, it should specify more about the document entry structure (e.g. what 'size' represents, or the shape of the list) to fully compensate.

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, so there is nothing for the schema to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on return content, which is appropriate for a parameterless status call.

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 names a specific resource set — Krita version, sandboxed workspace folder, and open documents with index/size/active — so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like document_info or list_workspace, which keeps it from a 5.

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 document_info or list_workspace, both of which appear to cover overlapping information. The agent must infer that this is a lightweight environment/status probe rather than a detailed document query.

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