Skip to main content
Glama

add_tag

Create an animation tag over a frame range in an Aseprite sprite, specifying direction, color, and repeats to define loops or one-shot animations.

Instructions

Create an animation tag spanning frames [from_frame, to_frame] (1-based).

Both frames must already exist: an out-of-range number is rejected with the sprite's
valid range rather than clamped to it (which used to report a tag added while
creating it over a different range).

Args:
    direction: "forward" (default), "reverse", "pingpong", or "pingpong_reverse".
    color: Optional tag colour, shown in the timeline.
    repeats: How many times the tag plays. **0, the default, means forever**, which
        is how a cycle is marked in the file; 1 is a one-shot such as an attack, a
        hurt or a death. This is the sprite's own answer to whether these frames
        loop, and `validate_loop` reads it: a repeated last frame is an error for a
        cycle and only a warning for a one-shot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
colorNo
repeatsNoDefault: 0.
filenameYes
to_frameYes
directionNoDefault: "forward".forward
from_frameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / color / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • removedInput schema / properties / color / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / color / title
      Removed value: -"Color"
    • addedInput schema / properties / color / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / direction / description
      Added value: +"Default: \"forward\"."
    • removedInput schema / properties / direction / title
      Removed value: -"Direction"
    • removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
      Removed value: -"Filename"
    • removedInput schema / properties / from_frame / title
      Removed value: -"From Frame"
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / title
      Removed value: -"Name"
    • addedInput schema / properties / repeats
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": 0,
      +  "description": "Default: 0.",
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
    • removedInput schema / properties / to_frame / title
      Removed value: -"To Frame"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"add_tagArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the non-destructive mutation annotations, the description discloses real behavior: the strict out-of-range rejection and its history, the meaning of repeats=0 ('forever', the cycle marker), and the fact that validate_loop reads repeats and treats a repeated last frame as an error for a cycle versus a warning for a one-shot. That is substantive context an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Core contract and the frames constraint are front-loaded, and the Args block is compact. The parenthetical about the previous clamping bug is historical trivia that does not help an agent invoke the tool, a minor bit of non-earning text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool it covers error behavior, the direction domain, and the important repeats default. It leaves name/filename semantics and whether names must be unique or an existing tag is overwritten unstated, which is the remaining gap.

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 29% and no enums are declared, so the description carries most of the load: it enumerates the four direction values, explains color is a timeline-displayed tag colour, and gives repeats' default and semantics in depth. It does not explain name or filename, so it is strong but not fully compensating.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create an animation tag spanning frames [from_frame, to_frame]') and states the 1-based indexing, so the agent knows exactly what is being produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling set_tag, leaving the boundary between creating and replacing a tag to inference.

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?

It gives a precondition (both frames must already exist and out-of-range values are rejected rather than clamped), which implies usage context. But it never states when to reach for add_tag versus set_tag, remove_tag, or validate_loop, so routing guidance is only implied.

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