Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by NosytLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_layer_opacity

Adjust the opacity of a specific layer in an Aseprite file by providing its name and an opacity value from 0 to 255.

Instructions

Set layer opacity by name (0-255).

Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify layer_name: Layer name to target opacity: Opacity value 0-255

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>",
      "layer_name": "<layer_name>",
      "opacity": "<opacity>"
    },
    "name": "set_layer_opacity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opacityYes
filenameYes
layer_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the opacity range but does not disclose side effects (e.g., modification in-place, file saving, error handling for missing layers), leaving behavioral traits largely hidden.

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?

One sentence plus args list, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, efficient for the limited information provided.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Missing return value info, error cases, and whether the tool persists changes. Inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so compensation needed. The description adds minimal meaning: clarifies opacity range (0-255) which is absent from schema, but filename and layer_name descriptions merely echo the field names.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Set layer opacity by name (0-255)'. The verb 'set' plus resource 'layer opacity' with scope 'by name' distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cel_opacity and set_layer_blend_mode.

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 tool versus alternatives like set_cel_opacity. Does not mention when to use or exclude, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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