Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by NosytLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_tag

Define or update an animation tag on a sprite, specifying frame range and playback direction (forward, reverse, pingpong).

Instructions

Create or update an animation tag on the sprite.

direction: forward | reverse | pingpong | pingpong_reverse

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "from_frame": "<from_frame>",
      "to_frame": "<to_frame>"
    },
    "name": "set_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
filenameYes
to_frameYes
directionNoforward
from_frameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'create or update' but does not specify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on update, or any side effects. The direction values are listed but not explained.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and to the point, but it sacrifices essential details. It is structured with a purpose line and a list of direction values, yet it omits critical information about parameters and behavior.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 43 sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how tags interact with the sprite, or how creation differs from updating.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. Only 'direction' is elaborated with its allowed values; 'name', 'filename', 'from_frame', and 'to_frame' are not described, leaving the agent unclear about their roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Create or update an animation tag on the sprite', which identifies the verb and resource. However, 'animation tag' is a specific concept that may not be clear to all agents, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_tag or export_tag.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it contrast with related tools such as delete_tag or export_tag.

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