Lists all saved custom color palettes for use in 3D design work. Requires Kiln Pro.
List all saved custom color palettes.
Needs Kiln Pro.
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": "list_custom_palettes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the Kiln Pro tier requirement, which is not present in any structured field. It adds nothing about failure behavior when the tier check fails, but for a zero-parameter list this is a minor gap.
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 short sentences with the purpose first and the prerequisite immediately after; no filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations. Every sentence carries information the agent would otherwise lack.
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 zero-arg read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs to decide and invoke. It could optionally hint at the returned fields (e.g., palette names or IDs usable with delete_custom_palette), but nothing required is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List all saved custom color palettes"), which cleanly separates it from write-side siblings like save_custom_palette and delete_custom_palette. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the noun is distinctive enough that the tool's role is unambiguous.
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?
It states a gating condition ("Needs Kiln Pro"), which is the main precondition an agent needs before calling. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other palette-related tools (save_custom_palette, delete_custom_palette, push_palettes_to_cloud), so usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.