Aseprite MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_tilemap_layer

Creates a tilemap layer with an empty grid, setting tile size and optional rows/columns to define a pixel art tile layout.

Instructions

Create a tilemap layer with an empty grid.

Args:
    name: Layer name.
    tile_width, tile_height: Tile size in pixels (sets the sprite grid).
    columns, rows: Grid size in tiles (default: enough to cover the canvas).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_tilemap_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`rows`	No
`frame`	No	Default: 1.
`columns`	No
`filename`	Yes
`tile_width`	No	Default: 16.
`tile_height`	No	Default: 16.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed17 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 4, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / columns / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / columns / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / columns / title
```
Removed value: -"Columns"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / columns / type
```
Added value: +"integer"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
```
Removed value: -"Filename"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / frame / description
```
Added value: +"Default: 1."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / frame / title
```
Removed value: -"Frame"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / name / title
```
Removed value: -"Name"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / rows / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / rows / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / rows / title
```
Removed value: -"Rows"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rows / type
```
Added value: +"integer"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / tile_height / description
```
Added value: +"Default: 16."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / tile_height / title
```
Removed value: -"Tile Height"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / tile_width / description
```
Added value: +"Default: 16."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / tile_width / title
```
Removed value: -"Tile Width"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"create_tilemap_layerArguments"
```
First observedv0.7.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds that the layer starts with an 'empty grid' and that tile size sets the sprite grid, which is useful. It omits that the operation writes to a file (required 'filename') or any permission/persistence behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a tight Args list. No wasted prose, appropriate size for a creation 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains most grid parameters but leaves the required 'filename' undocumented, leaving the agent unsure where the layer is created. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 43%, so the description should compensate. It documents name, tile_width, tile_height, columns, and rows, but omits the required 'filename' parameter entirely and never mentions 'frame'. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a tilemap layer with an empty grid.' This is clear and distinguishable from generic sibling tools like add_layer, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools such as create_tileset_project.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like add_layer or create_tileset_project, and no prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'tilemap layer'.

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

Deploy Server