Rengi Forge

sprite_tools_slice

Cut a sprite sheet into frames by grid or by transparent gaps; frame PNGs plus a ZIP. 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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sprite_tools_slice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cols`	No
`mode`	No		auto
`rows`	No
`trim`	No
`image`	No	Base64 PNG, JPEG or WebP.
`margin`	No
`minArea`	No	auto mode: ignore islands smaller than this many pixels
`spacing`	No
`imageUrl`	No
`cellWidth`	No
`cellHeight`	No
`mergeDistance`	No	auto mode: islands closer than this merge into one sprite

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / image / description
```
Previous value: -"Base64 PNG."New value: +"Base64 PNG, JPEG or WebP."
```
First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add genuinely useful behavior: the $0.05 USDC x402 payment and the 'charged only on success' billing rule, plus the output artifacts (frame PNGs and a ZIP). It still omits any permission/auth setup detail beyond the price and any processing limits, so it is good but not complete.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded (action, output, price). The trailing 'Part of Sprite tools...' run-on enumerates every sibling tool in the suite and adds almost nothing for an agent deciding how to call this specific tool, bloating the definition considerably.

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?

For a 12-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 25% schema coverage, the description supplies the cost model and return artifacts but leaves mode-specific requirements (does grid mode require cols/rows or cellWidth/cellHeight?), defaults behavior, and error/limit conditions unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does map 'transparent gaps' to auto mode and confirms the ZIP/PNG output, but trim, margin, spacing, cellWidth, cellHeight, cols/rows semantics and imageUrl vs image selection are left entirely to the schema.

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 clause states a specific verb and resource with both operating modes: 'Cut a sprite sheet into frames by grid or by transparent gaps; frame PNGs plus a ZIP.' That is unambiguous about what comes out. It does not name any sibling (e.g. sprite_tools_pack as the inverse operation) so differentiation is only inferable from the suite boilerplate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'by grid or by transparent gaps' phrasing implies which of the two modes to pick, which is real guidance for a 12-parameter tool. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for the reverse job (packing frames back into an atlas).

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?