ps_paletteCalculate the dominant colors visible in a Photoshop document and return their percentages, ignoring hidden layers. Specify document and color count.
Calcula los colores dominantes de lo que se VE en el documento (no solo de las capas), con porcentaje.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | No | Documento (nombre o índice desde 1). Por defecto el activo. | |
| colors | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: colors are computed from rendered/visible content, not layer data, and results include a percentage. However, it says nothing about cost, permissions, or the return structure beyond the percentage.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key scope distinction front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more. It notes that percentages are returned, which helps, but it leaves the `colors` parameter and the shape of the result undocumented for a computation 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 only 50%: the `doc` parameter is described in the schema, but `colors` (integer, 2-16) has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented 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?
States a specific verb (calcula) and resource (colores dominantes), and explicitly scopes it to what is visible in the document rather than layers. This scope note distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like ps_style_analyze and lets an agent identify it without opening the schema.
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 visible-vs-layers clarification implies when this is appropriate (analyzing rendered output), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the scope phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.