Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pixel-art-mcp

pixel-art-mcp

by comficker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Image to pixel art

pixelate_image

Convert photos or illustrations into pixel art by shrinking them to a pixel grid, reducing colors or applying a named palette, and saving the result as a PNG from a local path or URL.

Instructions

Turn a photo or illustration into pixel art: shrink it to a pixel grid, reduce it to a few colours (or a named palette) and save a PNG. Accepts a local PNG/JPEG path or an http(s) URL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "pixelate_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesPath or URL of a PNG or JPEG image
scaleNoUpscale factor for the saved PNG, nearest neighbour (e.g. 8 for a crisp preview)
widthNoWidth of the pixel grid in pixels (height keeps the aspect ratio)
colorsNoNumber of colours when no palette is given
outputNoWhere to save the PNG (defaults next to the input)
paletteNoPalette name (pico-8, sweetie-16, endesga-32, game-boy, 1-bit) or hex colours like "#1a1c2c,#5d275d"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: accepted input formats, both local path and http(s) URL sources, and that the result is written out as a PNG. However it says nothing about the return value (there is no output schema), whether an existing output file is overwritten, or what happens on fetch/decoding failure, which are significant for a file-writing tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the accepted input forms. Nothing is padded or redundant and the pipeline order in the text mirrors the actual operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers input and output format well but leaves the return value and failure behavior unexplained. The missing return information is the main gap, since nothing else in the definition supplies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries a clear description, and the baseline is 3. The description's mentions of 'pixel grid' and 'few colours (or a named palette)' map onto width/colors/palette but add no syntax, defaults, or precedence rules beyond what the schema states (e.g. that palette overrides colors).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a concrete verb-and-resource ('Turn a photo or illustration into pixel art') and enumerates the pipeline: shrink to a pixel grid, reduce colours, save a PNG. It clearly implies an end-to-end transformation distinct from extract_palette or upscale_pixel_art, but it never names those siblings, and the 'reduce it to a few colours (or a named palette)' clause overlaps with remap_palette without disambiguating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for producing a pixel-art image, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to remap_palette / upscale_pixel_art for the adjacent workflows. No prerequisites (network access for URLs, write permissions for the output path) are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools