spriteship

Set an asset's runtime render intent

set_asset_runtime_intent

FREE and SYNCHRONOUS (no jobId — do not poll). Declare how an asset revision should be rendered at runtime: plain_image, particle_emitter, deformable_strip, repeat_fill, nine_slice, shader_effect or path_follow. The intent and its config flow into every engine export made AFTER this edit. Set tileIndex to target one tile of a tileset/staged asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`config`	No	Intent-specific config. Validated and clamped server-side; unknown keys are dropped.
`assetId`	Yes	Asset id or slug.
`tileIndex`	No	Target one tile (tileset/staged only).
`runtimeUse`	Yes	The render intent. plain_image clears any previous intent.
`iterationId`	Yes	Revision (iteration) id to stamp.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'FREE and SYNCHRONOUS (no jobId — do not poll)' and 'flow into every engine export made AFTER this edit.' This enriches the annotation-provided readOnly/destructive hints, giving the agent practical knowledge about execution cost, timing, and side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the most critical operational facts (FREE, SYNCHRONOUS), then lists intent values, explains effect timing, and ends with tile-specific targeting. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers purpose, sync behavior, effect on exports, and tile targeting. It does not mention return values or verify prerequisites, but for a synchronous setter this is acceptable. Slightly more detail on expected response could be added.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning tileIndex targeting and that plain_image clears previous intent, but these are already covered in the schema property descriptions. No new parameter meaning is introduced.

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 the tool's function: 'Declare how an asset revision should be rendered at runtime' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates all valid runtime intent values, making it distinct from sibling tools like animate_asset or reprocess_asset.

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 context for use: it is free, synchronous, and applies to future engine exports. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the context is clear.

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?