Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_gif

Destructive

Export a full Aseprite animation as an animated GIF with frame durations and tag ranges preserved for use in game engines or web projects.

Instructions

Export the full animation as an animated GIF (honours frame durations).

Tag *ranges* are honoured, but a tag's playback direction is not: a GIF is a flat
frame sequence. A ping-pong tag exports forward, and the result says so in
`warnings` rather than letting the caller find out in-engine.

overwrite: Replace `output` if it already exists (default False = no-clobber).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNoDefault: 1.
outputYes
filenameYes
overwriteNoDefault: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
      Removed value: -"Filename"
    • removedInput schema / properties / output / title
      Removed value: -"Output"
    • addedInput schema / properties / overwrite / description
      Added value: +"Default: false."
    • removedInput schema / properties / overwrite / title
      Removed value: -"Overwrite"
    • addedInput schema / properties / scale / description
      Added value: +"Default: 1."
    • removedInput schema / properties / scale / title
      Removed value: -"Scale"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"export_gifArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: GIFs are flat frame sequences, ping-pong tags silently export forward and the loss is surfaced in `warnings`, and overwrite defaults to no-clobber. The no-clobber/overwrite disclosure is valuable for a destructiveHint=true tool, though permission requirements and error behavior remain unstated.

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, then the important tag-direction caveat, then the overwrite note. Each block earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly loose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully names the `warnings` channel where downgraded playback direction is reported. With a destructive write and 4 params, it covers the main behavioral traps, though the required path params and scale remain unexplained.

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 50%, with `output` and `filename` carrying no descriptions. The description explains `overwrite` semantics well (replace if exists, default False), but adds nothing for `scale` or the two required path parameters, so it only partially compensates 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 (Export) and resource (the full animation as an animated GIF), and the phrase 'full animation' implicitly distinguishes it from the tag-scoped sibling export_tag_gif. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so the distinction requires 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Export the full animation' suggests this is the whole-sprite exporter versus export_tag_gif, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The tag-range caveat is behavioral rather than a selection cue.

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