Skip to main content
Glama

Ludo AI Game Assets

by ai.ludo

editSpritesheet

Edit a previously generated spritesheet: re-prompt its underlying animation (edit_mode "prompt"), extend the frame beyond its borders ("outpaint"), or repair a bad loop ("fix_loop"). Pass the spritesheet_url you received from animateSprite, transferMotion, or an earlier edit - it must be a spritesheet you generated within the last 7 days; arbitrary external images are not accepted. A prompt is required for edit_mode "prompt", optional for "outpaint", and not accepted for "fix_loop"; optionally add up to 5 reference images (URL or base64) to guide the edit. The job result is the same result shape as animateSprite (spritesheet URL, frame layout, optional GIF or individual frames). Credits are charged only on success, based on the produced duration and never more than the duration you requested. Pass an optional request_id to tag the result for later retrieval via GET /assets/sprites/results. Requires an API key (user scope). Returns 202 with a job id immediately; poll getApiJob (pass wait: 30) until status is succeeded, then read its result field, which is exactly the response documented for this operation. Each account may have up to 50 generations queued or running at once; beyond that submissions return 429 (PENDING_JOBS_LIMIT) - wait for jobs to finish.

Credits: cost varies by model and duration (credits/sec): Forge 2/s (min 4), Forge Pixel 2/s (min 4); see this endpoint's full pricing table in the API docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestBodyYesPayload for editing a previously generated spritesheet. edit_mode selects the operation - prompt-driven edit (default), outpaint, or loop fixing.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds: it exposes async 202 + polling via getApiJob, idempotent request_id semantics, success-only credit charging, the 50-job queue limit and 429 error, and API-key/user-scope requirement. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects, auth, limits, and result fetching.

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 long but information-dense, with the core operations and main constraint front-loaded. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact (result shape, polling, credits, limits) needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a complex async, credit-billed, rate-limited tool with no output schema, and the description covers invocation constraints, job lifecycle, error behavior, auth, result shape, and cost policy. It is complete enough for an agent to select and drive the tool without additional documentation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the prompt/edit_mode dependency and image limit rather than adding new parameter-level info; most added value is operational (polling, credits, limits) rather than parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Edit a previously generated spritesheet') and gives three concrete operations: prompt re-edit, outpaint, and fix_loop. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling image/video editors and rotators by tying it to prior spritesheet generation.

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?

It states when to use the tool (editing a previously generated spritesheet) and gives strong constraints: spritesheet_url must come from animateSprite, transferMotion, or a previous edit, and external images are not accepted. It does not explicitly contrast sibling alternatives like rotateSprite, but the source requirement and mode rules make the intended use unambiguous.

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

All Ludo AI Game Assets toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a clear action and asset type (create3DModel, editVideo, removeBackground), and overlapping pairs such as animateSprite vs transferMotion vs animateSpriteKeyframes are carefully differentiated by input mode. The main friction is listApiJobs vs listGenerations, which both return generation history from slightly different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is overwhelmingly consistent camelCase verb+noun (create*, edit*, list*, animate*, cancel*), with only minor deviations like generatePose/generateWithStyle alongside createImage and the slightly awkward validateApiKeyEndpoint. There is no chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many', even though the multimodal game-asset scope explains much of the breadth. Agents face a large selection surface with many generation variants across 3D, sprites, images, audio, and video.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: image-to-3D plus rigging and animation, sprite pose/rotation/animation/editing, image create/edit/style/background-removal, video create/edit/upscale, and audio SFX/ambiance/music/voice. Minor gaps remain, such as no image upscaler and no individual asset retrieval or deletion.

Resources