Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aseprite MCP Tools

Aseprite MCP Tools

by ZeroTian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

crop_canvas

Crop an Aseprite canvas to a specified rectangle, removing all content outside the selected area.

Instructions

Crop the canvas to the given rectangle, discarding content outside it.

Args: filename: Aseprite file to modify x: Left edge of the crop area y: Top edge of the crop area width: Width of the crop area height: Height of the crop area

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>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>",
      "width": "<width>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "crop_canvas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filenameYes
xYes
yYes
widthYes
heightYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Mentions 'discarding content outside it', indicating destructive behavior. However, lacks details on irreversibility, what happens to other layers, or whether it modifies the file in-place. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is only partially transparent.

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?

Very concise: one sentence explaining purpose followed by a minimal Args list. No redundant or unnecessary text. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters, but missing details like return value (if any), error conditions, or behavior edge cases (e.g., invalid rectangle). For a straightforward tool with no output schema or annotations, slightly more context would be helpful.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates with an Args section listing each parameter and a brief description (e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify'). These add basic meaning beyond the schema titles, though they are terse.

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 'Crop the canvas to the given rectangle, discarding content outside it', defining the verb (crop), resource (canvas), and effect (discard outside). Distinguishes from siblings like resize_canvas and create_canvas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that resize_canvas might be preferred for non-destructive resizing. The description assumes the user already knows when to crop.

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