Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aseprite-mcp

aseprite-mcp

by MJSchut
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

edit

Applies pixel-art operations to Aseprite sprites: fill, replace, mirror, outline, shading, copy, shift, palette quantization, layer splitting, cleanup, and detail scattering.

Instructions

fill{x,y,color,contiguous?} | replace{from,to} (all cels unless layer/frame) | mirror{mode:left_to_right|right_to_left|top_to_bottom|bottom_to_top|flip_h|flip_v} | outline{color?="auto" (darker hue-shifted neighbor), mode?:outside|inside, corners?} | shade{light?:top_left|top|...|bottom_right, depth?, highlightDepth?, shadow?/highlight?: color|"auto"|false, ignore?: colors (e.g. outline), strength?} | copy{x,y,width,height,toX,toY,fromLayer?,fromFrame?,flip?:h|v} | shift{dx,dy,wrap?} | split{toLayer, rects?:[[x1,y1,x2,y2]], rows?(mask, x,y), below?, backfill?=1} (cut a part onto its own layer for rigging: head, torso, arm_l, arm_r, leg_l, leg_r) | separate{colors?(default: border colors), seeds?:[[x,y]], toLayer?="background"|false, islands?=6, fillHole?=true} (split background from subject) | quantize{palette?: hex list|preset|"sprite", dither?:none|bayer|fs, strength? 0-1, setPalette?} (pull colors to a palette) | finishing: round{colors?,passes?} (cut box corners) | selout{outline?,light?,strength?} (outline tinted from what it borders) | aa{outline?,amount?=0.5} (soften stair-steps) | pixel_perfect{colors?} (remove doubled line corners); outline defaults to darkest color | simplify{minSize?=2,passes?=2,keep?:colors} (merge orphan pixels/tiny clusters: removes shading noise; run before 1px details) | volume{colors?,ramp?(dark->light)|bands?=4,light?,elevation?=1.2,ambient?=0.15,dither?=0..1,roundness?} (shade each region as a lit rounded form) | scatter{pattern?:clumps|leaves|grass|bark|scales|stone|speck | rows (h lighter,m base,s darker,d dark), tones?:{h,m,s,d: color} (fixed colors), maskLayer? (place only over that layer), lightBias?=0..1 (denser on the lit side), density?=0.6, spacing?=3, strength?=0.4, colors?, rect?, seed?, breakEdge?=true} (detail clusters following the light)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
frameNodefault 1
layerNodefault top layer
actionYes
previewNoreturn preview image

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful action behavior such as 'all cels unless layer/frame' for replace, outline defaulting to darkest color, and split cutting parts onto their own layer, but it does not state that the tool mutates the file at path, whether changes are reversible, or how preview/return behavior works.

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 pipe-delimited reference is information-dense with little wasted prose, but it is an unstructured wall of text that is not front-loaded with purpose. Grouping exists for 'finishing' actions, yet overall readability is poor for a 17-action tool.

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 complex 17-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers many action-specific details and defaults. It still omits top-level semantics such as what path points to, what preview does, and safety/return context, leaving important gaps.

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 only 60% and the action enum values have no schema descriptions, but the description supplies detailed per-action sub-parameters and defaults, e.g. fill{x,y,color,contiguous?}, mirror{mode:...}, and scatter{...}. It adds substantial meaning beyond the top-level schema, though path, preview, and top-level layer/frame semantics remain lightly covered.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description enumerates many pixel-editing actions such as fill, replace, mirror, outline, shade, and quantize, so the broad purpose is inferable. However, it never states a clear high-level sentence like 'edit the sprite at path' or explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like draw or layer.

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?

It provides action-specific hints, such as running simplify before adding 1px details and using split for rigging, but it gives no guidance on when to choose edit over sibling tools like draw, layer, or preview. There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative-tool routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools