spriteship

Rebuild a character from its cached frames

rebuild_character

FREE, no AI. Re-render one animation from its durable cached frames by passing animation. 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. Omit animation only for an explicit full-character maintenance rebuild. Exact pose-owned scale references make the targeted path sibling-independent; legacy captures retain their compatibility sizing fallback. Image-only characters return NO_ANIMATIONS_TO_REBUILD without creating a job. A targeted rebuild returns an operationId/jobId — poll get_job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`animation`	No	Animation slug to rebuild independently. Omit only to rebuild the whole character.
`characterId`	Yes	Character id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / animation

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Animation slug to rebuild independently. Omit only to rebuild the whole character.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation is FREE and no-AI, that it cannot change art, that image-only characters return NO_ANIMATIONS_TO_REBUILD without creating a job, and that targeted rebuilds return an operationId/jobId to poll. This gives agents a strong behavioral model.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably sized, but it includes dense jargon like 'exact pose-owned scale references' and 'sibling-independent' that is unlikely to help an agent. Some sentences overlap with schema information and reduce conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the main use cases, response format, and an important edge case (image-only characters). It is not fully complete because it leaves some technical phrases vague and doesn't explain failure modes beyond the image-only case.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around the animation parameter's optionality and full-character rebuild behavior, but it largely restates what the schema says and does not clarify parameter formats or constraints beyond that.

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 identifies the tool as a repair/refresh tool that re-renders an animation from durable cached frames, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates itself from art-generation siblings by explicitly stating it never re-generates art and only repacks/normalizes frames.

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 gives explicit conditions: use it when a sheet looks stale or wrong after edits, or after a previous rebuild failed. It also states when not to use it (to change art) and how to distinguish targeted vs full-character rebuilds, though it does not name an alternative tool by name.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?