Skip to main content
Glama

spriteship

by com.spriteship

Rebuild a character from its cached frames

rebuild_character

FREE, no AI. Re-render every spritesheet, atlas and export of a character from its durable cached frames. This is the repair/refresh tool: use it when a sheet looks stale or wrong after a series of edits, or when a previous rebuild failed. It never re-generates art, so it cannot change what the character looks like — only how the frames are packed and normalized. Always rebuilds ALL animations: heights are normalized ACROSS animations, so rebuilding a subset would size that subset against itself and make animations drift apart on screen. Takes no options. Returns a jobId — poll get_job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
characterIdYesCharacter id.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: it is free and no-AI, cannot change what the character looks like, always rebuilds ALL animations, normalizes heights across animations, and returns a jobId. This adds substantial context about side effects and operational characteristics.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the opening flags 'FREE, no AI,' then the core action, use cases, boundary conditions, and the return value. It is front-loaded and structured logically without fluff, maximizing information density.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (rebuild affects all animations, returns a jobId), the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it doesn't do, why rebuilding a subset is harmful, and the async nature. No output schema is present, but the description explicitly mentions the jobId return, making it complete.

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 schema already covers the only parameter (characterId) with a description ('Character id.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no new detail about the parameter itself, but notes 'Takes no options' which reinforces the schema's additionalProperties: false. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Re-render every spritesheet, atlas and export of a character from its durable cached frames.' It also labels itself as 'the repair/refresh tool,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reprocess_asset or regen_asset_pair. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'use it when a sheet looks stale or wrong after a series of edits, or when a previous rebuild failed.' It also clarifies what it does not do ('never re-generates art') and warns against rebuilding a subset due to cross-animation normalization. This provides clear guidance vs alternatives.

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

All spriteship 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

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