Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

plan_asset_spec

Read-only

Generate ordered build steps for an asset spec without launching Aseprite, and return a validation report if the spec is invalid.

Instructions

Return the ordered build steps for an asset spec without launching Aseprite.

The pure dry-run: each step is ``{tool, args, purpose}`` naming the existing tool that
`build_asset_from_spec` would call. Returns a ``workflow_manifest.v1`` (kind
``asset_spec``) with the steps under `plan` and `dry_run=true`. If the spec is invalid,
returns the validation report instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / spec / title
      Removed value: -"Spec"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"plan_asset_specArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-open-world behavior, but the description adds significant detail beyond them: no Aseprite launch, pure dry-run execution, each step's shape as {tool, args, purpose}, the returned workflow_manifest.v1 kind with plan and dry_run=true, and the invalid-spec fallback to a validation report.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and dry-run behavior, followed by return and fallback details. It is compact and every sentence adds useful information, though the opening and second sentence overlap slightly in restating the dry-run idea.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the returned manifest shape and invalid-spec behavior. However, for a tool whose only parameter is an opaque nested object with 0% schema coverage, the definition remains incomplete because an agent cannot determine how to construct a valid spec from this description alone.

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 nested spec parameter is documented only by the schema type. The description calls it an 'asset spec' but does not describe its accepted fields, expected structure, or format, so it fails to compensate for the absent parameter 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 and resource: returning ordered build steps for an asset spec. It explicitly scopes the behavior as a dry-run without launching Aseprite and names build_asset_from_spec as the tool whose calls are being previewed, clearly distinguishing it from build_asset_from_spec.

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 dry-run framing strongly implies the tool is used to preview build steps before invoking build_asset_from_spec, and it notes that invalid specs return a validation report. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over validate_asset_spec or when not to use it, so usage is implied rather than directly prescribed.

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