Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_palette

Read-only

Retrieve a sprite's palette as #RRGGBBAA values so AI agents can inspect and reuse colors in pixel art and animation projects.

Instructions

Return the sprite's palette as a list of "#RRGGBBAA" colours.

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": "get_palette"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
      Removed value: -"Filename"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"get_paletteArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output format (list of '#RRGGBBAA' colors), which is useful behavioral context, but does not mention ordering, empty palettes, error cases, or other operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the return format efficiently.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned. However, it leaves the sole parameter undocumented and provides no usage context relative to the many sibling palette tools, so an agent still lacks important operationally relevant details.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'filename' is not explained at all in the description. The phrase 'the sprite's palette' hints that filename identifies a sprite, but no format, path, or naming convention is provided to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the sprite's palette'), and specifies the return format as a list of '#RRGGBBAA' colors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling palette-mutation tools like set_palette or add_palette_color.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_palette_usage, extract_palette, set_palette). Usage is only inferred from the tool name and description.

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