Skip to main content
Glama
MalloyTheDev

Aseprite MCP

by MalloyTheDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

write_texture_mcmeta

Destructive

Generate or repair an animated Minecraft texture's .png.mcmeta sidecar for an existing PNG to define frame timing, interpolation, and frame order.

Instructions

Write the <texture>.png.mcmeta sidecar for an animated texture.

``export_minecraft_texture`` writes this automatically for a multi-frame sprite; use
this to add or repair one beside a PNG that already exists.

Args:
    texture_path: Path to the ``.png`` (the sidecar goes beside it, same name + .mcmeta).
    frametime: Ticks each frame is shown for (1 tick = 50 ms).
    interpolate: Blend between frames - smooth for gradients, blurry for pixel art.
    frame_order: Optional playback order: frame indices (0-based) or
        ``{"index": i, "time": t}`` objects to hold individual frames longer.
    frame_width, frame_height: Only for non-square frames, which the game otherwise
        infers from the strip's width.

Returns a ``workflow_manifest.v1`` manifest (kind ``minecraft_texture``).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frametimeNoDefault: 1.
overwriteNoDefault: false.
frame_orderNo
frame_widthNo
interpolateNoDefault: false.
frame_heightNo
texture_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: the file lands beside the PNG with a derived name, and it returns a workflow_manifest.v1. It does not explain the ``overwrite`` behavior that makes the call destructive, which is the one meaningful omission.

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 purpose, then a routing sentence pointing at the alternative, then structured Args. The per-argument lines all add semantic value rather than restating names; slightly long but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return type (workflow_manifest.v1, kind minecraft_texture). Destination file naming and parameter semantics are complete; the only gap is the unmentioned ``overwrite`` flag, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With only 43% schema coverage, the description carries the load well: it explains frametime units (1 tick = 50 ms), the practical meaning of interpolate (smooth gradients vs. blurry pixel art), the ``frame_order`` format including 0-based indices and {"index", "time"} hold objects, and that frame_width/height are only needed for non-square frames. Only ``overwrite`` goes undocumented.

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 and artifact: write the ``<texture>.png.mcmeta`` sidecar for an animated texture. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ``export_minecraft_texture`` (which writes it automatically for multi-frame sprites) and from the sibling ``write_pack_mcmeta`` by naming the texture-level sidecar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use: 'add or repair one beside a PNG that already exists,' and names the alternative tool that already does this automatically. The condition that selects this tool over export_minecraft_texture is unambiguous.

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