Retrieve the RGBA color value of a pixel at specified coordinates from a selected layer and frame in an Aseprite file.
Read the RGBA color of a single pixel.
Args: filename: Aseprite file to read x: X coordinate y: Y coordinate layer_name: Layer to read from (uses active layer when empty) frame_index: Frame index starting at 1
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| layer_name | No | ||
| frame_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explains the parameters (layer, frame) but does not mention error handling for out-of-bounds coordinates or the exact return format (though RGBA is implied). It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is concise with a clear first sentence and an organized Args list. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter semantics without redundancy.
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?
While parameters are well explained, the return value is only implied ('RGBA color') and not explicitly stated. No output schema exists, so the description should specify the format of the returned color.
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 0%, but the description provides meaningful details for all parameters, e.g., 'Layer to read from (uses active layer when empty)' and 'Frame index starting at 1.' This adds significant value beyond the raw 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?
The description clearly states 'Read the RGBA color of a single pixel,' which is a specific verb+resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pixels_rect' or 'get_composite_pixel' that read multiple pixels or composite values.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for reading pixel data (e.g., get_composite_pixel, get_pixels_rect), explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.