Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_selection

Read-only

Detect whether a selection exists before editing and return its bounds, pixel area, and selected-region map to prevent unintended changes.

Instructions

Describe the current selection: whether there is one, and what it covers.

Returns `bounds`, the pixel `area` actually inside the selection, and a `map` of
the selected region using `#` for selected and `.` for not, in the same shape
`get_pixels(format="map")` uses. The map is capped, and omitted for a selection
larger than the cap, since a wall of characters is not feedback.

Worth calling before a large edit: a selection you forgot about is the difference
between changing what you meant and changing a corner of it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields (bounds, area, map), the map character encoding, and the caps/omission behavior for large selections.

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-loaded with the core purpose followed by return details and a rationale. Generally efficient, though the final motivational sentence is slightly padded rather than strictly informational.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, including the map format and its cap behavior. For a simple single-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole 'filename' parameter, though its meaning is largely self-evident. The baseline 3 applies since the description adds no parameter semantics the schema lacks.

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 (describe) and resource (the current selection), and clarifies scope as 'whether there is one, and what it covers'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like modify_selection, invert_selection, and deselect.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a concrete usage trigger: 'Worth calling before a large edit'. It explains why it matters but does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives (e.g., contrast with modify_selection or get_pixels), so it stays short of full when/when-not guidance.

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