Convert an image to pixel art with a deterministic shared palette. Set target dimensions, max colors, and dithering to generate a pixelated version for game assets.
Convert one image to pixel art with a deterministic shared palette.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| dither | No | none | |
| height | Yes | ||
| max_colors | No | ||
| resize_mode | No | box | |
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| alpha_threshold | No | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose determinism and a shared palette, which is useful, but it does not mention file overwrite behavior, input requirements, or output format. This is thin for a file-conversion tool.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The most distinguishing facts are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description leaves too much unsaid: required parameter roles, enum behavior, and expected output are all missing. An agent gets the high-level purpose but not enough to reliably invoke the tool correctly.
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% and the description mentions none of the eight parameters, their constraints, defaults, or relationships. Terms like 'image' and 'palette' only hint at the domain and do not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.
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?
States a specific verb ('Convert'), a single resource ('one image'), and the target result ('pixel art') with a useful qualifier ('deterministic shared palette'). The phrase 'one image' clearly differentiates it from the sibling convert_animation_to_pixel_art.
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?
The description implies this is for a single still image rather than an animation, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It names no sibling tools and gives no when-not-to-use conditions, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.