Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_layers

Destructive

Export each sprite layer to its own image file using an output pattern containing {layer}; add {frame} for animations and set overwrite to replace existing files.

Instructions

Export each layer to its own image file.

output_pattern must contain "{layer}" (e.g. "layers/{layer}.png"); add
"{frame}" too for animations. include_hidden also exports hidden layers.

overwrite: Replace files the pattern would expand onto (default False =
no-clobber). Aseprite expands the placeholders, so the check refuses when any
file matching the pattern already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scaleNoDefault: 1.
filenameYes
overwriteNoDefault: false.
include_hiddenNoDefault: false.
output_patternYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
      Removed value: -"Filename"
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_hidden / description
      Added value: +"Default: false."
    • removedInput schema / properties / include_hidden / title
      Removed value: -"Include Hidden"
    • removedInput schema / properties / output_pattern / title
      Removed value: -"Output Pattern"
    • addedInput schema / properties / overwrite
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Default: false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / scale / description
      Added value: +"Default: 1."
    • removedInput schema / properties / scale / title
      Removed value: -"Scale"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"export_layersArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by explaining exactly what the destruction means: the default is no-clobber, and the check refuses when any file matching the expanded pattern already exists. It stops short of describing the return payload, partial-write behavior, or whether directories are auto-created.

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?

The core action is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence maps to a distinct parameter concern with no filler. The final sentence on Aseprite's placeholder expansion is dense but earns its place by explaining why the existence check works the way it does.

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 five-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the highest-risk parts: output path templating, hidden-layer inclusion, and clobber protection. It omits only secondary concerns like scale behavior and what the call returns, which are minor against the covered risk surface.

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 60% and the description meaningfully lifts three of the bare parameters: it documents output_pattern placeholder syntax and the '{frame}' variant, explains include_hidden's effect, and details overwrite's no-clobber semantics. 'scale' and 'filename' remain undocumented in both places, which is the remaining 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and scope: 'Export each layer to its own image file,' which distinguishes it from bulk exporters like export_png and from the singular export_layer. It never names those siblings as alternatives, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 conditions are implied through the required '{layer}' placeholder and the note about adding '{frame}' for animations, which tells the agent when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to export_layer for single-layer output, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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