Match a hex color to the active Aseprite palette, returning the exact color or the nearest Euclidean-distance alternative when no exact match exists.
Finds exact or nearest color match in the active palette using Euclidean distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | Hex color string e.g. #FF1E14FF | |
| findNearest | No | Whether to find nearest color if exact match not found |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: matching is done by Euclidean distance and falls back to nearest. It does not say what is returned (palette index, hex, match distance) or what happens when findNearest is false and no exact match exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('active palette', 'Euclidean distance') is placed where it is read first. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage the description is serviceable, but there is no output schema, so the return shape (index vs. hex vs. match quality) is left unexplained. The no-match behavior when findNearest is false is also unaddressed.
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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself (hex format example, findNearest default). The phrase 'exact or nearest color match' loosely maps to findNearest but adds no format or threshold detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (finds) and resource (color match in the active palette), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_palette and set_palette_color. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary, but the lookup-versus-mutation distinction is implicit in 'finds'.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_palette when it just needs to enumerate swatches, or what to do when matching against a non-active palette. Only the bare purpose is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.