Find pixel-art references or sprites from permitted source families using query, source, license, and sprite-type filters to locate suitable assets for your project.
Find pixel-art references or sprites from allowed source families
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model | |
| query | Yes | Query | |
| sources | No | Sources | |
| max_results | No | Max results | |
| sprite_type | No | Sprite type | |
| license_filter | No | License filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'allowed source families' but does not define what those are, whether the tool performs external network calls, whether it is read-only, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The phrase 'allowed' implies restrictions but leaves their nature entirely unspecified.
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 short sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It is efficient with no fluff. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary details, which prevents a perfect score for structure.
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?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain allowed source families, accepted parameter values, output format, pagination, or error behavior. An agent cannot reliably craft a valid query or interpret the result set based solely on the provided information.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are single-word placeholders ('Model', 'Query', 'Sources', etc.) with no explanatory value. The tool description adds only a loose connection between 'source families' and the `sources` parameter, but does not clarify values for `sprite_type`, `license_filter`, `max_results`, or `model`. This fails to compensate for the shallow schema descriptions.
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 a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('pixel-art references or sprites'), and a scoping constraint ('from allowed source families'). This distinguishes it from the pixel_art_generate/set/edit siblings by implying a search operation. However, 'allowed source families' is vague and the description does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from, so it misses the top score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coeus_pixel_art_generate or coeus_web_search. It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or when NOT to use it. The only implication is that it is for finding pixel-art references, but no explicit context or exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.