get_tileset_imageReturn a tileset sheet as an image with its 48px grid layout to visually identify tile appearances. Use get_tileset_info for matching tile IDs and kinds.
Return one tileset sheet (A1-A5, B-E) as an image so you can see which tile looks like what, together with its grid layout (48px tiles). Use get_tileset_info for the matching tile ids and kinds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sheet | Yes | ||
| tilesetId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the return type (an image) and the 48px grid layout, which is real value beyond structured fields. However, it omits image format/size, whether a tile set must exist, and any cost or rate considerations for fetching an image payload.
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?
Two sentences, purpose and return shape front-loaded, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of schema content.
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?
For a 2-parameter image-returning tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (image plus grid layout) and how to pair it with get_tileset_info. Minor gaps remain on image format and error conditions, but an agent can call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does clarify that 'sheet' selects one of the A1-A5/B-E sheets and that tilesetId identifies the tileset. It adds no detail on tilesetId validity, existence, or how sheet names map to layout regions beyond the enum already in the schema.
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 ('Return one tileset sheet ... as an image') and explicitly scopes the sheet enum to A1-A5 and B-E. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, get_tileset_info, by stating the visual purpose ('see which tile looks like what').
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use this to visually identify tiles, use get_tileset_info 'for the matching tile ids and kinds'. The selection condition is clear, but there is no statement of when not to use it (e.g. if you only need ids, don't fetch the image cost).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.