Retrieve the active Pyxel palette and the palette indices assigned to image banks, enabling color verification for retro game debugging.
Read the active Pyxel palette and the palette indices used by image banks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| colors | No | ||
| errors | Yes | ||
| palette_size | No | ||
| used_indices | No | ||
| extended_palette | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description frames the operation as a read ('Read the active Pyxel palette'), but the annotations set readOnlyHint to false, which contradicts the clear read-only semantics of the description. It also sets idempotentHint to false for an operation that should be idempotent. This is an annotation contradiction, and the description adds no further behavioral context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words; it names the action and the resource in the order an agent needs. It is concise without sacrificing the core object.
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?
Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits the meaning of the required 'script' parameter and does not clarify the exact relationship between the active palette and image-bank indices. Combined with the misleading annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
The single required parameter 'script' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain how 'script' relates to reading the palette. With no parameter details in the schema, the description fails to compensate.
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 action ('Read') on a specific resource ('active Pyxel palette and the palette indices used by image banks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_image, read_tilemap, and read_audio, so an agent can identify the tool's scope.
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 tool is for retrieving palette data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose read_palette over read_image, read_tilemap, or read_audio, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites such as needing a script.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.