spriteship

List assets

list_assets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assets (static / tileset / staged / background / terrain / texture) with slug, hasAnimation, updatedAt, tags and favourite. hasAnimation is data-derived: ANY asset type can carry an animation, so never infer it from the type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Case-insensitive substring filter on the name.
`slug`	No	Exact slug match (a slug is an identifier — no partial hits).
`type`	No	Filter by asset type.
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default 100, max 500).
`projectId`	No	Restrict to one project.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main contribution is the non-obvious trait that hasAnimation is data-derived and can appear on any asset type. This warns against a common faulty assumption, adding valuable context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the resource and scope in the first sentence, then delivers a critical caveat in the second. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple listing tool with no output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the expected fields and a key behavioral warning. It does not mention pagination or default limits, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details or relationships, but it is not required to since the schema already explains each parameter clearly.

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 names the resource (assets) and enumerates the asset types it covers, along with the fields returned. However, the verb 'list' only appears in the tool name/title, not in the description itself, making it a noun phrase without an explicit action. It is still clear that this returns multiple assets and distinguishes from get_asset.

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 description includes a useful data-interpretation warning (never infer hasAnimation from type), which gives indirect guidance on how to treat results. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset or other list tools, and it lacks any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

All spriteship tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions are extremely detailed with cross-references (e.g., animate_asset vs frame_animation vs generate_character_animation). A few pairs like reprocess_asset vs revise_asset could be confused initially, but their descriptions and use cases are explicit enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_project, get_asset, cancel_job). Verbs are imperative and nouns are appropriately singular/plural, making the API predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the server is far beyond the 15-25 range considered reasonable for most APIs. While the domain is broad (project, assets, characters, animations, jobs, exports, credits), the sheer number creates a heavy surface that may overwhelm agents and suggests the API could be consolidated into higher-level operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full creative pipeline: project creation, asset/character generation, animation (both AI and frame-based), revisions, exports, and job management. Minor gaps include lack of delete operations for assets/characters/projects and no listing of all jobs, but these are not critical for the core workflow and are likely intentional for a generative art platform.

Resources

Need Help?