Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

validate_asset_spec

Read-only

Check whether an Aseprite asset spec is valid before building it: verify schema, layers, animations, palette, slices, export formats, and one-build fit, then return validation results.

Instructions

Validate an aseprite_mcp.asset_spec.v1 document (does the spec make sense?).

Checks the schema, kind, canvas, per-kind fields, palette, layers, animations
(`frame_count`, not `frames`), slices, export formats, and that the work the plan
would produce fits one build. `name` may already carry a `.aseprite`/`.ase`
extension: it is normalised, not doubled, so `hero` and `hero.aseprite` name the same
file. Returns a ``workflow_manifest.v1`` (kind ``asset_spec``) with a `validation` block
`{passed, checks, errors, warnings}`. This does **not** check a finished sprite against
the spec - that's a separate future tool.

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": {
      "spec": "<spec>"
    },
    "name": "validate_asset_spec"
  }
}

Input 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: -"validate_asset_specArguments"
  2. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the side-effect profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the return artifact (workflow_manifest.v1 with a {passed, checks, errors, warnings} block) and the filename normalisation rule for `.aseprite`/`.ase` extensions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the parenthetical 'does the spec make sense?' anchors intent immediately, followed by the check list, return shape, and the exclusion. It is dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical is the only mildly expendable element.

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 read-only validation tool with a generic nested object parameter and no output schema, the description supplies both the checks performed and the return structure. The only gap is how errors are surfaced (returned in the validation block vs raised), which an agent invoking on invalid input might want to know.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `spec` parameter is an unrestricted nested object, so the description must carry the burden - and it does, enumerating the spec's constituent parts (schema, kind, canvas, per-kind fields, palette, layers, animations, slices, export formats). It could still be clearer on the frame_count vs frames nuance as an input field.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (aseprite_mcp.asset_spec.v1 document) plus the concrete scope of checks performed. It also distinguishes itself from adjacent tools like plan_asset_spec/build_asset_from_spec and explicitly excludes the 'validate a finished sprite' case.

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 closing sentence draws a clear boundary ('does not check a finished sprite against the spec - that's a separate future tool'), giving useful when-not guidance. However, it never routes the agent among existing siblings such as validate_sprite_for_game_export or validate_loop, so context is clear but alternatives are not fully enumerated.

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