rd_paletteGenerate a color palette from a text prompt and return a swatch image along with extracted, deduplicated hex colors.
Generate a color palette with Retro Diffusion's palette model.
Returns the swatch image path plus extracted hex colors (row-major, deduplicated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| colors | No | ||
| prompt | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the model and output format (swatch image path + hex colors), which is helpful, but does not disclose any side effects, processing time, or whether it requires the backend to be running. Typical for generation tools, but could be more transparent.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a concise return description. No filler words.
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?
The description covers the essential purpose and return format. The output schema exists (though not shown in detail), which may explain return values. Minor gaps remain: no mention of backend prerequisites or parameter nuances, but overall adequate for a generation tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain 'seed' or 'colors' meaning beyond the schema's defaults. However, the core parameter 'prompt' is self-explanatory, and the output description hints at how colors are used. Still, for a 3-param tool, more parameter detail would be beneficial.
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 the tool's purpose clearly: generating a color palette with Retro Diffusion's palette model and returning the swatch image path plus hex colors. It distinguishes from siblings like rd_palettize and rd_quantize by specifying the model and output.
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 when to use this tool (when you need a palette generated by the palette model), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like rd_palettize or ase_get_palette. Slight gap, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.