Decode raw N64 texture data into RGBA pixels and PNG images, converting hex texture and optional palette inputs into viewable output.
Decode raw N64 texture data into RGBA pixels and PNG image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | Bit depth per texel | |
| width | Yes | Width in pixels | |
| format | Yes | N64 texture format | |
| height | Yes | Height in pixels | |
| dataHex | Yes | Hex data of texture | |
| paletteHex | No | Hex data of palette (required for CI) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output types but says nothing about error behavior for malformed hex, whether mismatched size/width/height is rejected, or how the PNG is returned; these gaps matter for a decode operation with 5 required parameters.
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 short sentence with no filler and the output described up front. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves no room for the usage and behavioral context an agent needs.
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?
With six parameters, five of them required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain input preconditions and result shape. Instead it offers only one line, leaving the agent to infer format-specific behavior, especially the CI palette path, from the schema alone.
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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the enum choices and the CI palette requirement. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ("Decode") and a specific resource ("raw N64 texture data"), and names the outputs (RGBA pixels and a PNG image). The 'N64' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling texture_decode_ps2, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 guidance on when to choose this over texture_inspect, texture_analyze_palette, or texture_decode_ps2. Nothing states prerequisites such as supplying paletteHex for CI textures, which is the main conditional in using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.