extract_channelsExtract RGB, CIE L, or other color channels from an image and create new views for each selected channel. Specify color space and channel list to separate components for processing.
ChannelExtraction (RGB / CIE L / …) into new views.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| channels | No | ||
| color_space | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are placed into new views. However, it does not disclose side effects, required input state, or failure behavior.
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 short and front-loaded with no filler, but it reads more like a label than an explanatory definition. It is concise without being informative.
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 no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no usage guidance, the one-phrase description leaves an agent guessing about inputs and expected behavior. It provides only the high-level result of producing new views.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at channel/color-space content. It does not explain id, prefix, or the expected values for channels and color_space.
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 states channel extraction into new views and names example channel types (RGB / CIE L), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It does not use a direct verb phrase, but it is specific enough to distinguish from general image-processing siblings.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.