Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gui_available

Read-only

Check if the Aseprite GUI can launch by resolving its executable. Call before GUI-based operations to prevent failures.

Instructions

Check whether the Aseprite GUI can be launched (executable resolvable).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gui_available"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"gui_availableArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, closed-world probe, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by clarifying that 'available' means the executable is resolvable, but it does not say what the tool returns (boolean? status string?) or what the agent should do when it reports unavailable. With no output schema, that gap matters.

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 the parenthetical clarifying the criterion. Every word earns its place, and the key information leads.

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?

For a trivial no-argument probe, the description is nearly sufficient: it defines the condition being tested. The only shortfall is the absence of any return-value information, which is not covered by an output schema, so an agent cannot know the result shape in advance.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. Nothing in the text misrepresents the input contract.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (check) and a specific subject (whether the Aseprite GUI can be launched), and even defines the check as 'executable resolvable', which removes ambiguity about what 'available' means. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling health_check tool, which is the main gap keeping it from a 5.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives — notably the sibling health_check, which sounds like an overlapping diagnostic. The pre-flight use case is only implied by the word 'check'. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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