Generates and optionally runs a Lua batch script to automate artist touch-ups, .aseprite layer packaging, and .gpl palette loading in LibreSprite or Aseprite.
Generate (and optionally run via LibreSprite / Aseprite CLI) a Lua batch script for custom artist touch-ups, .aseprite layer packaging, and .gpl palette loading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip_name | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| execute_cli | No | ||
| alpha_cutoff | No | ||
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that execution is optional via LibreSprite/Aseprite CLI, but it does not state required CLI availability, file side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or what running the script changes on disk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The primary action and optional execution mode are stated before the use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a relatively complex tool with five inputs, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description says what kind of script is generated but not enough about required inputs, generated output, CLI requirements, or execution safety for an agent to call it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters. The description only vaguely maps to `execute_cli` via 'optionally run via LibreSprite / Aseprite CLI'; it leaves `project_id`, `character_id`, `clip_name`, and `alpha_cutoff` unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate (and optionally run ...) a Lua batch script.' It also names concrete use cases such as `.aseprite` layer packaging and `.gpl` palette loading, making the tool distinguishable from export and workflow siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use cases imply when an agent might select this tool: custom artist touch-ups, layer packaging, and palette loading. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or direct alternatives among the many gameforge siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.