Place multiple tiles at once in a sprite layer by specifying each tile's column, row, and index, so AI agents can build tilemaps without repeated single-tile calls.
Place many tiles at once. tiles: list of {"column", "row", "index"}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | Default: 1. | |
| layer | Yes | ||
| tiles | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / filename / titleRemoved value: -"Filename"Input schema / properties / frame / descriptionAdded value: +"Default: 1."Input schema / properties / frame / titleRemoved value: -"Frame"Input schema / properties / layer / titleRemoved value: -"Layer"Input schema / properties / tiles / titleRemoved value: -"Tiles"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"set_tilesArguments"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write nature is already covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether existing tiles are overwritten, whether 'index' refers to a tileset index or -1 for empty, or whether filename/layer must pre-exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the payload shape, with no filler. It is lean almost to the point of being terse, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A mutation tool on a tilemap layer with four parameters, 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and dense tile siblings — the description should do much more. It omits what the operation mutates, overwrite behavior, and how it differs from the other tile tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'frame' is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does by disclosing the tile object shape {column, row, index}, which is genuinely useful since the schema types 'tiles' items as an opaque object. But filename, layer, and frame semantics remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Place many tiles at once'), and the plural quantity implicitly distinguishes it from the singular set_tile. However, it never names or contrasts with the nearby siblings set_tile, add_tile, fill_tile, or fill_tilemap, leaving the agent to infer which tile-writing tool applies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named, despite four tile-manipulation siblings (set_tile, add_tile, fill_tile, fill_tilemap) whose boundaries an agent needs resolved. The agent gets no signal about batch-vs-single or paint-vs-place selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.