Retrieve the active sprite palette from an Aseprite file as a JSON color array. Use it to access color data for your pixel art project.
Return the active sprite palette as a JSON color array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval via 'Return', which hints at no side effects, and it discloses the output format. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, nor does it mention behavior if no sprite is active or if the filename is invalid. A getter without annotations should state its non-mutating nature more explicitly.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Return') and adds the essential output detail ('JSON color array'). Nothing extraneous.
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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves key gaps: it does not explain the role of `filename`, any prerequisites (e.g., an open sprite), error behavior, or return format beyond 'color array'. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional context, especially given the ambiguity introduced by the undocumented parameter.
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% for the only parameter, `filename`, and the tool description never mentions the parameter. The parameter name suggests a file name, but its exact role—whether it is the sprite file from which to read the palette or a palette file—is ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the missing schema information.
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 a specific action ('Return the active sprite palette') and the output format ('JSON color array'). It is clear about what is retrieved, and the verb 'Return' distinguishes it from mutating palette tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extract_palette or get_color_stats, so it misses the full sibling-distinguishing criterion.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many palette-related sibling tools, an agent receives no help choosing this one over set_palette, extract_palette, or list_palette_presets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.