Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_slice

Destructive

Delete a slice by name from an Aseprite sprite file. Specify the filename and slice name to delete it.

Instructions

Delete a slice by name.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_slice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
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 / name / title
      Removed value: -"Name"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"remove_sliceArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is already known. The description adds nothing beyond 'delete', failing to disclose what deletion entails (permanent? affects file? warnings? error if not found?). With annotations covering the safety profile, the bar is lower, but this still adds no behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded verb+resource. Very efficient, though perhaps too terse for the scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with 2 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a slice is, how to reference it, or consequences of deletion.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters (name, filename) lack descriptions. The description only implies a 'name' parameter but does not explain what it identifies, how 'filename' relates (which file contains the slice?), or the relationship between them.

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?

Clear verb+resource: deletes a slice by name. Distinct from siblings like add_slice, set_slice, list_slices. But doesn't identify the 'slice' context (e.g., sprite) or how it's identified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus set_slice, add_slice, or other slice operations. No prerequisites or context beyond the verb.

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