Fetch built-in retro palette presets and their hex colors. Returns JSON mapping preset names to lists of hex colors.
List the built-in retro palette presets with their colors.
Returns: JSON object mapping preset name to its list of hex colors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (list) with no side effects. However, it could mention that it is safe and idempotent. The description is adequate but not overly detailed.
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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the action and resource, the second explains the return format. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed (built-in retro palette presets) and what is returned (mapping of name to hex colors). No additional context is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none.
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 clearly states the verb (List) and resource (built-in retro palette presets). It specifies that it returns colors, and the tool name 'list_palette_presets' matches. Sibling tools like apply_palette_preset, get_palette, and set_palette have different purposes, so this tool is distinct.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does. Given sibling tools that also deal with palettes (apply_palette_preset, get_palette), the agent might benefit from hints about when to list presets vs. get the current palette, but none are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.