Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_properties

Read-only

Read custom properties stored on an Aseprite sprite object, including named namespaces, to retrieve metadata omitted by sprite info and sheet exports.

Instructions

Read the custom properties stored on one object inside the sprite.

The counterpart to `set_properties`, and the only way to read that metadata back:
neither `get_sprite_info` nor the sprite-sheet export reports custom properties.

Args:
    target, layer, frame, name, tile: Which object, exactly as `set_properties`
        takes them.
    namespace: Read a named group instead of the unnamed one. Aseprite offers no way
        to list the namespaces an object has, so a group can only be read by a caller
        who knows its name; an unknown name reads as empty rather than as an error.

Returns `properties` as an object of key to value, each value in the type it was
stored as. A value of a type JSON cannot describe (the editor can store a point or a
rectangle) is reported as text rather than dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
tileNo
frameNo
layerNo
targetYes
filenameYes
namespaceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further with non-obvious edge cases: an unknown namespace reads as empty rather than erroring, and values of types JSON cannot describe (point, rectangle) are returned as text rather than dropped. It does not cover failure behavior for a bad filename/target, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loads the core purpose, then uses an Args block and a Returns sentence with no filler. Each part earns its place, though the 'counterpart to set_properties' framing repeats the scope point already made in sentence one.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape (key-to-value object, types preserved, unrepresentable types as text) and discloses the namespace-enumeration limitation. Only the required filename parameter and error conditions remain unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 params, so the description must carry the load, and it does: target/layer/frame/name/tile are grouped as the object locator, and namespace gets a full explanation of its grouping semantics and failure mode. The required 'filename' parameter is never explained, and it defers locator semantics to set_properties, so it falls short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('custom properties stored on one object inside the sprite') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming both its counterpart set_properties and the tools that do NOT surface this data (get_sprite_info, sprite-sheet export). An agent can identify it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames itself as the counterpart to set_properties and the only way to read that metadata back, and warns that namespaces cannot be enumerated, so a group can only be read by a caller who already knows its name. That is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed.

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