Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by NosytLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

start_preview_server

Launch a local HTTP server to preview exported Aseprite sprites in a browser. Specify the directory and optional port.

Instructions

Start a simple HTTP server to preview exported sprites.

Args: directory: Directory to serve port: Port to bind (default 8000)

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": {
      "directory": "<directory>"
    },
    "name": "start_preview_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
directoryYes

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it's a 'simple HTTP server' but does not disclose whether it is blocking, returns a URL, allows multiple instances, or how to stop. Missing critical behavioral traits for a network service.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences plus an arg list. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description still lacks key details: how to access the server (URL), that it runs until stopped, concurrency limits, and error handling. This is a network tool and needs more behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'directory: Directory to serve' and 'port: Port to bind (default 8000)'. This adds meaning beyond the type and default, clarifying purpose.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool starts a simple HTTP server to preview exported sprites. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `stop_preview_server` or other server-related tools.

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?

The description says 'to preview exported sprites' but provides no guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, lifecycle (e.g., must call stop_preview_server), or alternatives. The sibling `stop_preview_server` exists but is not referenced.

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