Export each layer of an Aseprite sprite to a separate image file using a customizable output pattern with '{layer}'; optionally include hidden layers.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| include_hidden | No | ||
| output_pattern | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses key behaviors (pattern requirements, hidden layer export) but omits details about file format, overwrite behavior, or error handling. It adds moderate value beyond the schema.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences and a note. Every sentence contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and key constraints but lacks details on parameters and behavior for a tool with 4 parameters and multiple sibling export tools.
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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It only clarifies output_pattern (must contain '{layer}') and include_hidden (exports hidden layers). 'filename' and 'scale' are left unexplained, leaving gaps in understanding.
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 clearly states 'Export each layer to its own image file.' It uses a specific verb ('export') and resource ('each layer') and distinguishes from sibling tools like export_layer (likely single layer) and export_png/export_gif (single file exports).
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 description provides usage details (output_pattern must contain '{layer}', optional '{frame}', include_hidden exports hidden layers) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MalloyTheDev/aseprite-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server