Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rawtherapee-mcp-server

rawtherapee-mcp-server

by lucamarien
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_output_files

List processed output files in the output directory to see which images are available after RAW development. Optionally filter by format (jpeg, tiff, png).

Instructions

List processed output files in the output directory.

Use this to see what images have been processed and are available. Params: directory, format_filter (jpeg, tiff, png)

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_output_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryNo
format_filterNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, permission requirements, or output structure. However, the operation is inherently simple and non-destructive, so the lack of detail is less critical.

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?

The description is very concise: three sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the param list is appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (list files with two optional filters) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and basic param info, which is largely sufficient for this low-complexity 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters and gives example values for format_filter ('jpeg, tiff, png'), but does not explain what the parameters do (e.g., that format_filter filters by format). This adds some value but is insufficient.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'List processed output files in the output directory.' It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'processed output files,' and differentiates from the sibling 'list_raw_files' by focusing on output files from processing.

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?

The description includes a usage hint: 'Use this to see what images have been processed and are available.' This implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_raw_files'.

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