SpriteMCP

by NicoRMA

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_shading_plan

Get the locked shading plan for a character to access predefined shading data for pixel art creation and animation.

Instructions

Read the locked design/shading_plan.json for a character.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_shading_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`output_dir`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates read-only intent and a 'locked' precondition, but it does not say what happens if the file does not exist, whether the call can fail, or whether output_dir changes behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is too sparse for an agent to safely decide when to call it and how to interpret the parameters. It does not explain the 'locked' precondition, the role of output_dir, or how this read relates to the surrounding shading-plan workflow, even though an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only weakly hints that 'name' refers to a character. It never explains what output_dir controls, leaving that parameter semantically undocumented beyond its schema type and default.

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 identifies a concrete read operation on a named artifact ('shading_plan.json'), scoped to a character. It is distinct from siblings like plan_shading or get_outfit_plan because it names the locked design file directly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_shading or get_outfit_plan. The word 'locked' implies a precondition, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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