Skip to main content
Glama

export_spritesheet

Export frames from an Aseprite file into a single sprite-sheet image, with options for layout, padding, scaling, and metadata output.

Instructions

Export frames into a single sprite-sheet image.

Args:
    output: Destination sheet image (.png).
    sheet_type: one of horizontal, vertical, rows, columns, packed.
    scale: Integer upscaling factor.
    data_output: Optional .json path to also write frame/tag/slice metadata
        (JSON-array format) describing each frame's rectangle in the sheet.
    padding: Pixels of padding around/between frames.
    layer: Only include this layer.
    ignore_layer: Exclude this layer (e.g. a "reference" layer).
    split_layers: Lay out each layer as separate cels in the sheet.
    split_tags: Treat each tag as a separate set in the sheet.
    overwrite: Replace existing output(s) (default False = no-clobber). When
        data_output is given, both files are checked before anything is written.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerNo
scaleNo
outputYes
paddingNo
filenameYes
overwriteNo
sheet_typeNopacked
split_tagsNo
data_outputNo
ignore_layerNo
split_layersNo
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behaviors: output is .png, supports optional JSON metadata, controls for layers and overwrite, and that overwrite defaults to 'no-clobber' with both files checked when data_output is given. However, it does not mention whether the original sprite is modified (presumably not, as it's an export), required permissions, or error handling for missing input files.

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 description is well-structured as a list with a clear first sentence. It is longer due to parameter explanations, but each sentence has purpose. A minor improvement could be condensing some parameter descriptions, but overall it is efficient for the number of parameters.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters and the no-clobber behavior well. However, it omits the format of the optional JSON output, what happens on errors (e.g., missing filename), and any validation of input parameters. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: output file path, sheet_type allowed values (horizontal, vertical, rows, columns, packed), scale factor, data_output purpose, padding, layer inclusion/exclusion, split options, and overwrite behavior. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Export frames into a single sprite-sheet image.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_png or export_gif, which export individual frames or animations. The verb 'export' and resource 'spritesheet' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different export formats, the agent is not helped in deciding to use export_spritesheet instead of export_png, export_gif, or export_tag_gif. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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