Reverse the RGB colors of pixels in an Aseprite layer or frame while preserving alpha, useful for creating negative or inverted color effects.
Invert the RGB colours of a layer's pixels (alpha preserved).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | Default: 1. | |
| layer | No | ||
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / filename / titleRemoved value: -"Filename"Input schema / properties / frame / descriptionAdded value: +"Default: 1."Input schema / properties / frame / titleRemoved value: -"Frame"Input schema / properties / layer / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / layer / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / layer / titleRemoved value: -"Layer"Input schema / properties / layer / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"invert_colorsArguments"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is thin. The description usefully discloses that only RGB is inverted while alpha is preserved, which is real behavioral information, but it does not say whether the change applies to a single layer or all layers, whether it is reversible, or how it interacts with an active selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the alpha-preservation caveat parenthetically placed. Zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should carry more weight. For a mutation tool with an optional layer parameter, it fails to explain the effect's scope (single layer vs. whole sprite), whether the operation can be undone, or how it differs from related color tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (frame has a trivial 'Default: 1.' note, while layer and filename are undocumented). The description gestures at the layer concept with 'a layer's pixels' but never explains what happens when layer is omitted, which is a meaningful ambiguity given only filename is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Invert the RGB colours of a layer's pixels') and adds the scope detail that alpha is preserved. It is clearly distinguishable from the neighboring invert_selection, though the description never names that sibling to close the loop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are offered. With siblings like adjust_hue_saturation, desaturate, and invert_selection, the agent gets no help deciding when color inversion is the right operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.