ssyubix-pixelart-mcp

by syuaibsyuaib

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

pixelart_delete_canvas

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a pixel art canvas from memory to free resources when no longer needed. Provide the canvas ID to remove it.

Instructions

Remove a canvas from memory once it's no longer needed.

Args: params: canvas_id. Returns: Confirmation string.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "pixelart_delete_canvas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only that removal is 'from memory', which is consistent but does not significantly extend beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 very short (3 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is necessary, though the args/return lines could be integrated. Appropriate for a simple deletion tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the core action and when to use, but lacks detail on parameter semantics and return value specifics.

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 mentions 'canvas_id' but provides no explanation of its meaning, format, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Remove a canvas from memory' with a specific resource (canvas) and verb (delete). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pixelart_clear_canvas, which might be confused with deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'once it's no longer needed' provides implicit guidance on when to use the tool, but no explicit contrast with alternatives or conditions for not using it. The tool is straightforward, but guidelines are minimal.

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