Skip to main content
Glama

spriteship

by com.spriteship

Revise an asset

revise_asset

PAID. Generate a new revision of an asset from feedback text. The previous revision is kept — revisions are additive, never destructive. Terrain assets also accept templateId to pull a whole category pack (edges / grounds / props / slopes / textures / structures). Passing sourceItemIndex uses that extracted item as the visual source for a complete new related collection: the source stays untouched and every output is a separate new asset listed in get_job.assetIds. The default dry run returns the exact semantic revision plan and planToken; show the preview to the user, then resend the unchanged request with that token. DEFAULTS TO A PLAN + COST PREVIEW — see dryRun. Returns { jobId } — poll get_job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoDEFAULTS TO TRUE. While true this returns only a cost quote ({ estimatedCredits, balance, spendCapDaily, spentLast24h, capRemaining }) and executes nothing. Show the user estimatedCredits and get an explicit yes for that amount, THEN re-call with dryRun:false to actually spend.
promptNoWhat to change. Required unless templateId is given (terrain).
assetIdYesAsset id or slug.
planTokenNoREQUIRED when dryRun=false. Copy unchanged from the immediately preceding dry-run response.
imageModelNoOverride the image model.
templateIdNoTerrain only — generate a focused category pack.
textureKindNoTexture only — 4-way seamless fill, or a directional left-right strip. Defaults to the asset's existing kind.
idempotencyKeyNoOptional Idempotency-Key for the real (dryRun:false) call. Omit and one is minted per call. Reuse the SAME value when retrying a call that failed with ENTITY_BUSY / 402 / 429 so the retry cannot double-dispatch.
sourceItemIndexNoCollection item to seed a related collection. Preserves the source and creates one new asset per output.
sourceIterationIdNoRevise from a specific earlier revision instead of the current one.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 'PAID' flag, the two-phase cost-confirmation flow, 'never destructive' reinforcing destructiveHint=false, and the output contract '{ jobId } — poll get_job'. It also explains the idempotency semantics and that output assets land in get_job.assetIds. Nothing contradicts the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false are all consistent with the described behavior).

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 one dense but efficient paragraph with no wasted sentences — every clause covers a distinct behavior (paid flag, additive revisions, terrain templateId, sourceItemIndex collection seeding, dry-run flow, return value). The most important fact ('PAID') is front-loaded, and the two-phase flow is stated before the return contract. Slightly long, but justified for a 10-parameter tool with a complex confirmation workflow.

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 complex paid tool with 10 parameters, two-phase dry-run flow, terrain-only options, and collection seeding, the description covers the full lifecycle: plan → token → real call → jobId → poll get_job. It mentions the cost preview and return shape. Minor gaps exist — exact error/retry handling beyond the schema note and the source of credits (get_credits sibling) — but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters — including a thorough dryRun explanation and planToken requirement. The description does add narrative flow (the seam between dryRun, planToken, and the real call, and the templateId category list), but these are auxiliary to what the schema already conveys. The baseline of 3 is correct since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Generate a new revision of an asset from feedback text') that clearly distinguishes this from create_asset (new asset), reprocess_asset (processing), fix_asset_seams (seam repair), and regen_asset_pair (regeneration). The 'revisions are additive, never destructive' clause pins down the semantic scope. An agent can differentiate it from the large sibling set without opening the schema.

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?

The description provides clear conditional usage context: terrain assets 'also accept templateId', sourceItemIndex is described as seeding a related collection, and the dryRun→planToken→real-call workflow is spelled out step by step ('show the preview to the user, then resend the unchanged request with that token'). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use (e.g., 'use create_asset instead when starting from scratch'), so routing guidance is contextual rather than exclusionary.

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