Rengi Forge

sprite_tools_pack

Pack frames into one atlas (MaxRects) with padding and edge extrusion; TexturePacker JSON and Unity JSON. Price: $0.05 USDC via x402, charged only on success. Part of Sprite tools: 2D sprite jobs for games: cut sprites out of their background (exact for one-color backgrounds, AI for busy ones), turn animation videos into aligned sprite sheets, make normal maps for 2D lights, build 47-tile autotile sets with Tiled, Godot and Unity rules, slice a sheet into frames, pack frames into an atlas with TexturePacker and Unity metadata, and turn upscaled or AI-generated pixel art into real pixel art on its true grid with a limited palette..

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "frames": "<frames>"
    },
    "name": "sprite_tools_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trim`	No
`frames`	Yes
`extrude`	No
`maxSize`	No
`padding`	No
`powerOfTwo`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine value beyond schema: the pricing model ($0.05 USDC via x402, charged only on success) and the two output metadata formats. However it omits failure modes, retry behavior, and practical limits (e.g. 2048 frames, max atlas size), which for a paid mutation-style job is a real gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is well front-loaded and the pricing is useful. But the third 'sentence' is a sprawling catalog that restates every sibling tool, adding substantial noise that dilutes the operative content and makes the definition harder to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does state the return formats (TexturePacker JSON and Unity JSON), which is helpful. But with a 6-parameter, 0%-description-coverage schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks per-parameter meaning and usage constraints needed to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all six parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only padding, extrusion (extrude) and output metadata; trim, maxSize, powerOfTwo, and the required frames structure (name/image/imageUrl, item cap) are left entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb+resource+algorithm+output: 'Pack frames into one atlas (MaxRects) with padding and edge extrusion; TexturePacker JSON and Unity JSON.' An agent can tell this is a frame-atlas packing tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling texture_tools_pack/texture_tools_atlas, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives. The trailing 'Part of Sprite tools:' list enumerates sibling capabilities but never states which of them to pick over this one (e.g. texture_tools_pack). Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name and output format mention.

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

All Rengi Forge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?