Upscale pixel art images or animations using deterministic nearest-neighbor scaling while preserving transparency.
Upscale one image or animation with deterministic nearest-neighbor pixels and preserved transparency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | Yes | ||
| format | No | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| 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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does add useful traits: deterministic nearest-neighbor scaling and transparency preservation. However, it does not state whether the input file is left untouched, whether a new output file is created, or how animations are handled beyond the word 'animation'.
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?
One tight sentence leads with the verb and resource, then adds the two most decision-relevant behaviors. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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 simple upscale operation the core information is present, but there is no output schema or parameter documentation to compensate for the missing output-file/return behavior. An agent would likely infer that output_filename is written, yet the description does not confirm it.
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 needed to compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not explain scale, format, or filename semantics. The enum and constraints in the schema help, but the description only indirectly relates 'animation' to the format parameter.
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 names the specific operation ('Upscale'), the resource ('one image or animation'), and the pixel-art-specific behavior (deterministic nearest-neighbor, preserved transparency). It is clearly distinct from conversion, filtering, and drawing siblings in the tool list.
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 given about when to prefer this tool over related operations or when not to use it. The phrase 'Upscale one image or animation' implies the intended use, but no alternative tool or exclusion condition is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.