SpriteMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

show_reference_grid

Upscale a style reference image onto a visible per-pixel grid, save grid PNGs to output directory, and return their file paths for pixel-art alignment.

Instructions

Upscale the style-ref PNG onto a visible per-pixel grid.

Writes under output_dir/reference_grid/. Returns path strings for grid PNGs.

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": "show_reference_grid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scale`	No
`style_ref`	No
`output_dir`	No
`readable_scale`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

It discloses the write location ('Writes under output_dir/reference_grid/') and return value, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it leaves out side-effect details such as overwrite behavior, directory creation, and what happens when style_ref is null.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the output location plus return type are stated efficiently. Every sentence 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 tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation: parameter semantics and usage context are missing, despite the output path and return type being clear.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains style_ref and output_dir, but scale and readable_scale are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to set these parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Upscale the style-ref PNG onto a visible per-pixel grid.' It also clarifies the output artifact ('Returns path strings for grid PNGs'), making the tool's role distinct from drawing/editing siblings like paint_pixels or fill_rect.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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