spriteship

Set an asset's collision body

set_asset_collision_body

FREE and SYNCHRONOUS (no jobId — do not poll). Author the PHYSICS shape a game should build its collider from for an asset revision: a rect, a circle, or a closed polygon, in NORMALIZED coordinates (0..1 fractions of the sprite/tile cell, origin top-left; a circle radius is a fraction of WIDTH). Set tileIndex to give one tile of a tileset/staged asset its own shape — it overrides the asset-level default for that tile. Pass collisionBody: null to clear.

This is what stops a game from falling back to the sprite bounding box. The shape flows into every map and asset export made AFTER this edit — Tiled per-tile objectgroups, the Tiled map Collision layer, and the Phaser/Godot/Unity/GameMaker colliders — and it is resolved from the asset at export time, so it applies to tiles that were already placed on a map before you set it. Distinct from the FOOTPRINT, which is only the level editor's snap/tessellation shape and has no physics meaning.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`assetId`	Yes	Asset id or slug.
`tileIndex`	No	Target one tile (tileset/staged only). Omit for the asset-level default.
`iterationId`	Yes	Revision (iteration) id to stamp.
`collisionBody`	Yes	The shape, or null to clear it.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, open-world), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: synchronous execution, no jobId, export-time resolution affecting already-placed tiles, and the null-to-clear behavior. This goes well beyond what annotations alone could convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: sync/free status, coordinate system, shape types, per-tile override, null clearing, export implications, and footprint distinction. It is front-loaded with the most decision-critical fact (synchronous, no poll) and avoids filler.

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 (nested collision shapes, coordinate normalization, per-tile semantics, export-time effects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the shape is, how to specify it, when it applies, and how to clear it, leaving the agent well-equipped to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: normalized coordinates with origin top-left, circle radius as a fraction of width, tileIndex overriding the asset-level default, and null clearing the shape. This earns an extra point above the baseline.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Author the PHYSICS shape a game should build its collider from for an asset revision' and clearly enumerates supported shapes (rect, circle, polygon). It also distinguishes the collision body from the FOOTPRINT, preventing confusion with related concepts.

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 gives explicit usage context: it is FREE and SYNCHRONOUS, so agents should not poll for a jobId; it explains when to use tileIndex for per-tile overrides; and it clearly states the collision body is distinct from the FOOTPRINT, which has no physics meaning. However, it does not name any alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?