Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_frame

Add a new frame to an Aseprite file. Specify the filename to modify.

Instructions

Add a new frame to the Aseprite file.

Args: filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify

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": "add_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic action. Missing information about side effects, constraints (e.g., file must exist), or whether frames are appended.

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?

The description is very concise with two clear sentences. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could include more structured information like argument format without sacrificing conciseness.

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 minimal tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits context about the resulting frame (e.g., position, duration) and any required file state.

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?

The description explains that 'filename' is the name of the Aseprite file to modify, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it lacks specificity (e.g., path format, file extension) and does not explain any additional parameters (none provided, but schema has 1 parameter).

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 the action ('Add a new frame') and the resource ('Aseprite file'), which is distinct from siblings like 'add_frames' (plural) and 'copy_frame'.

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 (e.g., 'add_frames' for multiple frames, or 'copy_frame'). No context about prerequisites or intended use cases.

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