Aseprite MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

stamp_file

Composite an image or sprite onto a target Aseprite layer at specified x,y coordinates, controlling source frame, opacity, and blend mode.

Instructions

Composite another image/sprite file onto a layer at (x, y).

Args:
    source: Path to a .aseprite/.png/.bmp/... to stamp in.
    x, y: Top-left placement on the target canvas.
    source_frame: Which frame of the source to use (1-based).
    opacity: 0-255.
    blend_mode: Blend mode for compositing (normal, multiply, …).

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>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "stamp_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`frame`	No	Default: 1.
`layer`	No
`source`	Yes
`opacity`	No	Default: 255.
`filename`	Yes
`blend_mode`	No	Default: "normal".	normal
`source_frame`	No	Default: 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed17 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / blend_mode / description
```
Added value: +"Default: \"normal\"."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / blend_mode / title
```
Removed value: -"Blend Mode"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / filename / title
```
Removed value: -"Filename"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / frame / description
```
Added value: +"Default: 1."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / frame / title
```
Removed value: -"Frame"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / layer / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / layer / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / layer / title
```
Removed value: -"Layer"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / layer / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / opacity / description
```
Added value: +"Default: 255."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / opacity / title
```
Removed value: -"Opacity"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / source / title
```
Removed value: -"Source"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source_frame / description
```
Added value: +"Default: 1."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / source_frame / title
```
Removed value: -"Source Frame"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / x / title
```
Removed value: -"X"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / y / title
```
Removed value: -"Y"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"stamp_fileArguments"
```
First observedv0.7.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered, and the description confirms it composites onto a layer. It adds useful detail (opacity 0-255, blend_mode options) but never says whether existing pixels are overwritten or blended, nor whether the target layer must exist.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact, with every line earning its place. Minor redundancy in listing x, y and source_frame that the schema exposes, but overall efficient.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description should explain the layer/filename targets and the source_frame vs frame distinction. It covers most compositing knobs but leaves enough gaps that an agent could call it incorrectly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 44%, and the description compensates by explaining x/y as top-left placement and giving opacity range and blend_mode examples. However, it omits the role of filename, layer, and frame, and it documents source_frame without clarifying its relation to the also-present frame parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (composite/stamp) and resource (another image/sprite file onto a layer at x,y), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like import_image and draw_image_base64. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name the nearest sibling (stamp_pattern).

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 versus alternatives such as stamp_pattern, draw_image_base64, import_image, or add_reference_layer, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server