Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

health_check

Read-only

Run a self-test to verify Aseprite is detected, the workspace is usable, and a create-sprite/export-PNG round-trip succeeds.

Instructions

Run a self-test of the server and its Aseprite integration.

Returns whether Aseprite was found, its version, the workspace, the number of
registered tools, and whether a real create-sprite plus export-PNG round-trip
succeeds. `ok` is True only if the round-trip works and the workspace is usable.

`workspace` is the **resolved** path, which is where files land and what every other
tool reports, because paths are canonicalised before the containment check that keeps
them inside the workspace. When the configured value spells the same directory
differently, which is what a junction or a symlink does, it is reported alongside as
`workspace_configured` with a note; the two are one place, not two.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further and discloses the return payload (Aseprite found, version, workspace, tool count, round-trip result) and defines the semantics of `ok` — that it is true only when both the round-trip and workspace usability hold. It also explains the workspace canonicalisation behavior. It stops short of saying whether the self-test is cheap or slow.

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 purpose, then the return breakdown, then the workspace nuance — a sensible order. The final sentence ('the two are one place, not two') restates what the preceding clause already conveyed about workspace vs workspace_configured, adding mild redundancy, but the overall size is defensible given no output schema exists.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so — fields, the `ok` condition, and the workspace/workspace_configured relationship. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a health_check result is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed or given, which is correct.

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: 'Run a self-test of the server and its Aseprite integration.' It is immediately distinguishable from roughly 90 sibling tools, including the superficially related gui_available, because it is framed as a server-level diagnostic rather than an editor capability probe.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The diagnostic intent implies when to call it (before/after operations to verify the integration is live), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as gui_available, nor any mention of cost or side effects of the self-test. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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