Skip to main content
Glama
kitao

pyxel-mcp

by kitao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run

Execute Pyxel scripts headlessly for a set frame budget or until a condition, with scheduled inputs and state, screen, or video capture for verification.

Instructions

Run a Pyxel script headlessly for a frame budget or until a condition holds, with scheduled input and state, screen, or video capture. screen_image snapshots with inline=true also return the PNG as image content, and a single inline frame may omit its output path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
untilNo
framesYes
inputsNo
scriptYes
timeoutNo
snapshotsNo
random_seedNo
stall_window_framesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
logYes
errorsYes
seededYes
snapshotsYes
until_metNoTrue once `until` held, False when it was evaluated without ever holding, None when it was never evaluated.
exit_statusYesok includes reaching the frame budget, matching until, or an explicit pyxel.quit(). Cleanup failures are reported as crashed.
frame_countYesNumber of completed update/draw pairs; excludes a partial quit frame.
elapsed_secondsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • addedOutput schema / properties / exit_status / description
      Added value: +"ok includes reaching the frame budget, matching until, or an explicit pyxel.quit(). Cleanup failures are reported as crashed."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / frame_count / description
      Added value: +"Number of completed update/draw pairs; excludes a partial quit frame."
  2. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful details like the inline image behavior and headless execution, but it does not disclose the risk of executing arbitrary user code or potential side effects. The description partially adds behavioral context beyond annotations but misses key aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a specific, non-obvious detail about inline images. It is efficient, though it could be slightly better organized with explicit sections for parameters and usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity (8 parameters, nested snapshot objects, discriminator), the description is far too brief. It does not explain the differences between snapshot types, the format of 'until' conditions, or the meaning of stall_window_frames. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and would likely struggle to construct valid requests.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only offers a high-level overview (frame budget, condition, scheduled input, capture) but does not explain individual parameters like timeout, stall_window_frames, random_seed, or the snapshot request variants. This is insufficient for a complex tool with 8 parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (run), resource (Pyxel script), and context (headlessly, with frame budget or condition). It also mentions capture capabilities, which distinguishes it from the read/info sibling tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on the tool's purpose (running scripts headlessly with capture) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling set (all read/info tools), the intended usage is fairly obvious, so this is a 4 rather than a 3.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools