gimp-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove editable filter

gimp_remove_filter

Remove an editable filter from a GIMP layer so the layer renders as if the filter was never applied. Use it to clear non-destructive filter effects while keeping the layer intact.

Instructions

Remove an editable filter from a layer: the layer renders as if it had never been applied.

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": {
      "item": "<item>",
      "filter": "<filter>"
    },
    "name": "gimp_remove_filter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	Yes	Item id (layer, group, mask...) e.g. 'item:5@a1b2c3d4'.
`filter`	Yes	Filter id from gimp_list_filters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	Yes
`filters`	Yes	Editable filters on the layer, top of the filter stack first (most recently added first).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the layer renders as if the filter were never applied, which explains why removal is non-destructive. It does not say whether the removed filter is retained or re-appliable, whether the operation is undoable, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the observable effect second; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter surface is small, so the description needn't explain return values. However, the central term 'editable filter' is jargon left undefined, and an agent gets no signal about undo semantics or whether the removal can be reversed, which matters for a mutating operation.

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 100%, so both parameters (item, filter) are already documented, including the pointer to gimp_list_filters for filter ids. The description adds no syntax or format detail, and its phrasing 'from a layer' is slightly narrower than the schema's item definition, which also accepts groups and masks.

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 ('Remove an editable filter from a layer') plus the resulting effect, so an agent knows exactly what happens. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like gimp_delete_layer or gimp_list_filters, though it never names an alternative tool that applies filters to contrast with.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gimp_restore_checkpoint for undoing work or gimp_call_procedure for re-applying effects. Usage can only be inferred from the statement of purpose.

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

Deploy Server