Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by NosytLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_canvas

Create a new canvas in Aseprite with custom width and height, saving to a specified file.

Instructions

Create a new Aseprite canvas with specified dimensions.

Args: width: Width of the canvas in pixels height: Height of the canvas in pixels filename: Name of the output file (default: canvas.aseprite)

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": {
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "create_canvas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthYes
heightYes
filenameNocanvas.aseprite

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it creates a new canvas but does not discuss overwrite behavior if the file exists, error handling for invalid dimensions, or side effects like file system writes. The return value is not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: one introductory sentence followed by a clear list of arguments. No extraneous information, and each sentence adds value.

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 simple creation tool, the basics are covered, but it lacks details on what happens on success (e.g., is the canvas opened in the UI?), error cases, and file overwrite policy. With no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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?

The input schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: width and height are pixels, filename defaults to 'canvas.aseprite'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states it creates a new Aseprite canvas with specified dimensions. The verb 'Create' and resource 'canvas' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'crop_canvas' or 'resize_canvas' which modify existing canvases.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implicitly indicates creation of a new canvas, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like importing an image or modifying an existing canvas. No conditions or exclusions are stated.

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