Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
krita-mcp

krita-mcp

by jowinjohnchemban
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_brush_presets

Lists Krita brush preset names, optionally filtered by keyword such as ink, pencil, or airbrush, so you can find and choose the right brush.

Instructions

Names of Krita's brush presets (optionally containing filter, e.g. 'ink', 'pencil', 'airbrush').

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": "list_brush_presets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
filterNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond implying a read, it says nothing about result ordering, whether all presets are returned or a truncated subset, or how the default limit of 200 affects output — meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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 compact sentence with the resource stated first and the optional filter behavior nested in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical could be split into a clearer second sentence.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should still cover truncation behavior and what the returned names are for. It handles the core purpose and filter semantics adequately but leaves the agent guessing about result size and downstream use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for `filter` by explaining substring containment and giving concrete examples ('ink', 'pencil', 'airbrush'), but it says nothing about `limit` or the default truncation at 200, leaving one of two parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 the exact resource (Krita's brush presets) and states that names are returned, which separates it from siblings like list_filters, list_resources, and pick_variation. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent (enumerate preset names) is unmistakable.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_resources or pick_variation, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage hint is that the `filter` argument matches substrings, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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