Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_frame

Destructive

Delete a specific frame from an Aseprite sprite using its 1-based index. Out-of-range values are rejected, ensuring the correct frame is removed.

Instructions

Delete a frame (1-based). The sprite must have more than one frame.

`frame` must already exist: an out-of-range number is rejected with the sprite's
valid range rather than clamped to it (which used to delete a different frame).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "frame": "<frame>"
    },
    "name": "remove_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frameYes
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
      Removed value: -"Filename"
    • removedInput schema / properties / frame / title
      Removed value: -"Frame"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"remove_frameArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral detail: frame indexing is 1-based, out-of-range input is rejected with the valid range rather than clamped, and this prevents accidentally deleting a different frame. This goes well beyond the annotation-level safety profile.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. The parenthetical about the old clamping behavior directly explains the validation behavior rather than adding trivia.

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 low-complexity deletion tool with annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers indexing, preconditions, and error behavior well. Minor gaps remain around the `filename` parameter and any downstream effects on tags or cels, but these are not central for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the `frame` parameter as 1-based, required, and validated against the existing range, though it does not clarify the `filename` parameter beyond the obvious string name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a frame (1-based).' It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like add_frame, duplicate_frame, and move_frame, and states the key precondition that the sprite must have more than one frame.

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?

The description gives clear conditions for use: the sprite must have more than one frame, and the target frame must already exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the deletion context and prerequisites are sufficient to guide correct invocation.

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