Skip to main content
Glama

draw_on_tile

Draw pixels onto a tile within a tilemap layer's tileset. Automatically creates a new tile when the specified tile index matches the current tile count.

Instructions

Draw pixels onto a tile in a tilemap layer's tileset.

Coordinates are tile-local (0,0 = tile top-left). When tile_index equals the current tile count, a new tile is appended automatically.

Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Tilemap layer whose tileset to edit tile_index: Tile to draw on (1 = first real tile; 0 is reserved for the empty tile and cannot be drawn on) pixels: List of {"x": int, "y": int, "color": "#RRGGBB"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pixelsYes
filenameYes
layer_nameYes
tile_indexYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses tile_index=0 restriction and automatic tile appending. However, it omits side effects (e.g., file persistence, undo behavior, error states like missing layer). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is concise with a clear Args list, front-loaded with the key behavior. No wasted sentences, though could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Given no output schema and many siblings, the description covers the core functionality well but misses details like error handling, file saving behavior, and whether multiple pixel entries affect performance. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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% but the description adds structured detail: pixels is a list of {x, y, color} objects, tile_index has reserved values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

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 draws pixels onto a tile within a tilemap layer's tileset. It specifies tile-local coordinates and explains the special meaning of tile_index (0 reserved, appending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_pixels (canvas-level) and set_tiles (tile data).

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 explains mechanics (coordinates, tile_index behavior) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_pixels or set_tiles. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites. The context is implied but not formal.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NosytLabs/aseprite-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server