Converts Aseprite projects into PNG/GIF sequences or tagged spritesheets with JSON metadata for game asset pipelines.
Export png/gif/sequence, or a spritesheet + Aseprite JSON (tags) when sheet is set. Frames 1-based.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| layer | No | ||
| scale | No | ||
| sheet | No | ||
| frames | No | [from, to] | |
| output | Yes | ||
| splitLayers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output formats and the spritesheet condition, but omits important export behavior such as file overwrite semantics, destination requirements, permissions, and failure modes.
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 description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The main export formats are front-loaded, followed by the spritesheet condition and frame indexing note.
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?
Given 8 parameters, a nested `sheet` object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It covers output formats and one indexing rule but leaves most parameter semantics and file-writing behavior unexplained.
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 only 13% across 8 parameters. The description adds useful meaning for `sheet` and notes that frames are 1-based, but it does not clarify required `path` vs `output`, `tag`, `layer`, `scale`, or `splitLayers`, leaving most parameters under-specified.
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 states a specific verb and resource: export image formats (png/gif/sequence) or a spritesheet with JSON when `sheet` is set. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as `preview` or `batch`.
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 only conditional guidance is 'when sheet is set,' which explains spritesheet mode but not when to use this tool versus alternatives like `preview` or `batch`. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.